The 'just plain dumb' factor

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

Flat Top Junkie
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:07 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Flat Top Junkie »

Also, are you playing PBEM or vs computer.

PBEM
Hisotrically, (mid 1942 to late 1942) US radar control was less than perfect in that often all the US ships would blast the closest IJN ship and everything else would be left alone.
So this is not a particularly ahistorical result.

So would they continue to pound it until it was just a ripple?

Also, surely the AP is the largest target so if the radar picked up anything at all it would be the AP?
Also, are you playing PBEM or vs computer. If one plays vs the computer on hard or very hard levels the computer "cheats". Ie, the results are purposely skewed. SO if you are playing on that level and the computer gets outrageous luck...Well that is how it was designed. It forces you to pick off the weak pieces one by one...I agree that is stupid and not fun, but then play PBEM....

I also remember that during the Marianas Turkey shoot
A. 1 of the Japanese attack groups attacked the AA screen which was 40 miles in front of the CVs and got reamed...
B. Another attack force completely missed the USN.

As I said, we're playing PBEM.... perhaps you could explain, before we toss the game due to frustration, and maybe without the heaps of witty candour and sarcasm if you believe that the Combat Report that I detailed seems either a) realistic, b) fair in a PBEM and c) if you cannot effect the outcome of such an engagement at all then what's the point?

With an 3:1 advantage in warships and 4 Heavy Cruisers up against 3 destroyers and a light cruiser how is this sort of attack result determined.

I'm really interested.

Are you just saying I was unlucky? Because in this PBEM game it's been one turn after another of so called 'bad luck'.

Even my opponent thinks it's some sort of dodgy shenanigans. So what gives?

User avatar
Veer
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:26 am
Location: Excuse me

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Veer »

So, we sat down had a chat and decided that this was just to plain stupid for words. We're just plain wasting our time with UV because the game is ridiculous. The whole weather thing is stupid and the combat resoultion seems to be just ridiculous. In short, UV just spoils our enjoyment of the game.... ho hum... guess we're going back to Flat Top...

Enjoy! [:D]
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
User avatar
Veer
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:26 am
Location: Excuse me

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Veer »

Also, surely the AP is the largest target so if the radar picked up anything at all it would be the AP?

Maybe the AP fled from the scene and the other ships covered it? They are the escorts - seems a reasonable course of action.
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
User avatar
Veer
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:26 am
Location: Excuse me

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Veer »

With an 3:1 advantage in warships and 4 Heavy Cruisers up against 3 destroyers and a light cruiser how is this sort of attack result determined.

You do remember Tassafaronga?
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
Flat Top Junkie
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:07 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Flat Top Junkie »

Hisotrically, (mid 1942 to late 1942) US radar control was less than perfect in that often all the US ships would blast the closest IJN ship and everything else would be left alone.
So this is not a particularly ahistorical result.

Just one last observation, is my naval captain Capt. Stupid McStupid? This IJN fleet is sat there, unloading, the AP isn't even a moving target. It's at anchor - stationary. The IJN were surprised, het the combat replay told me that much... so like I said, how come not a single shot was fired at the AP?

Is this back to the same old problem of UV not having targetting priorities? Because it would seem to me that the 'obvious' choice/orders would be 'sink the Japanese transports at all costs' - in fact, weren't these exactly the orders historically?
User avatar
jeffs
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:43 am
Location: Tokyo

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by jeffs »

1. The game makes the assumption for both sides that warships will cover for transports. It is that simple, you have to blow away the DDs to get to the juicy stuff.

2. Veer brings up Tassafaronga in which a Japanese fleet of DDs on a supply were jumped by a large american CA/DD force. One IJN DD was destroyed when almost all the US guns fired on it. The US had one CA sunk and 2 badly damaged by long lances.

3. Japanese warships start off with much higher experience in night battles. That affects the result.

I am sure if you reran the battle a few times, you find some better results for the US, but I doubt the AP would get hit. So in answer to the myriad of questions

a) realistic
bad luck on the part of the US, but not outrageous. Who were the TF leaders?

b) fair in a PBEM
? define fair. The results are plausible. Certainly the IJN won that round. If was the USN I would be bummed, but I would not be saying the game system is messed up

c) if you cannot effect the outcome of such an engagement at all then what's the point
??? This will need a few comments.
1. You are the area commander. You must leave tactical control to your subordinates. If you psychological can not do this, quit the game. The entire game is based on that you are not micromanaging tactical situations. End of story.
2. But as theatre commander, you can pick the TF commander. In addition, you can check which boats have good night battle experience and use only those. So you have more ability to affect the outcome than you think.


Simple comments.
A. You got hosed. That said, anytime you face IJN DDs you have the risk of being long lanced and having a victory snatched away. But is the result outrageously stupid. No, it is not.

B. If you can not bear to give up tactical control, then you should seriously consider quitting as the UV experience does not incorporate tactical oversite of local battles.

C. If you can get over B, then you can
1. Learn to enjoy the game.
2. Figure out what rules you need to learn
3. Learn how to more effectively utilize your forces for optimal effectiveness.
To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: Flat Top Junkie
Hisotrically, (mid 1942 to late 1942) US radar control was less than perfect in that often all the US ships would blast the closest IJN ship and everything else would be left alone.
So this is not a particularly ahistorical result.

Just one last observation, is my naval captain Capt. Stupid McStupid? This IJN fleet is sat there, unloading, the AP isn't even a moving target. It's at anchor - stationary. The IJN were surprised, het the combat replay told me that much... so like I said, how come not a single shot was fired at the AP?

Is this back to the same old problem of UV not having targetting priorities? Because it would seem to me that the 'obvious' choice/orders would be 'sink the Japanese transports at all costs' - in fact, weren't these exactly the orders historically?

That was similar to what was expected from Tom Phillips in Malaya, Mikawa at Guadacanal, Doorman in the East Indies and Kurita at Leyte. How many transports did they sink? Not much. Balikpapan (sp?) was a minor success. That's about it. For early '42 scenarios, the lack of experience that the Allied air and sea forces have minimizes much of their effectiveness.


Flat Top Junkie
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:07 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Flat Top Junkie »

1. The game makes the assumption for both sides that warships will cover for transports. It is that simple, you have to blow away the DDs to get to the juicy stuff.

Isn't that what the TF did? Why don't ships sink during a battle rahter than continue to absorb fire, and also keep firing themselves?

18 hits on one single DD?
[b) fair in a PBEM
? define fair. The results are plausible. Certainly the IJN won that round. If was the USN I would be bummed, but I would not be saying the game system is messed up /quote]

The IJN player is winning *every* round it's almost like the thing is rigged in his favour. As an example... for 4 turns now that Japs have had a transport fleet unloading in PM.

Turn 1. Poor weather limits PM air ops. 1 mission, concentrates on a Minesweeper sinking it, ignores the APs (4 of them)

Turn 2. 2 Air Attacks, most of which ignore APs, however 1 takes 2 bomb hits, casualties 18!

Turn 3. 2 Air Attacks, ditto... casualties 41!

Turn 4. Thunderstorm closes PM but does not effect unloading APs.

end of the turn IJN has 6000 troops unloaded in PM

Turn 5. Allied bomber strike sinks 3 of the 4 APs, ignores the escorts, only after the APs have finished unloading.

Doesn't seem like 'bad luck' from where I'm sitting.
B. If you can not bear to give up tactical control, then you should seriously consider quitting as the UV experience does not incorporate tactical oversite of local battles.

Well, that's the point we're at. Simply because of the skewed results.
C. If you can get over B, then you can
1. Learn to enjoy the game.
2. Figure out what rules you need to learn
3. Learn how to more effectively utilize your forces for optimal effectiveness.

All of which do not effect the above sequence do they?

TAIL GUNNER
Posts: 1156
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Los Osos, CA

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by TAIL GUNNER »

Isn't that what the TF did? Why don't ships sink during a battle rahter than continue to absorb fire, and also keep firing themselves?

18 hits on one single DD?


Ships WILL sink during surface combat....if enough damage is taken.

Also, if opposing ships close in (I think to 2000 yards), they'll fire AA weapons at each other.....probably where you got 18 shell hits from, or the majority anyway...
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
Flat Top Junkie
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:07 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Flat Top Junkie »

Ships WILL sink during surface combat....if enough damage is taken.

Also, if opposing ships close in (I think to 2000 yards), they'll fire AA weapons at each other.....probably where you got 18 shell hits from, or the majority anyway...

Err... nope. The TF's broke contact at 10,000 (while all four of the IJN escorts were burning), my allied force didn't press the attack to destroy the unloading transport.

The DD in question lost it's main gun turret in the first salvo from the Australia, suffered severe engine damage as well and yet still managed to a) Fire upon the Allied ships and b) even launch a successful torpedo attack on a US DD.

Nope, not close enough for AA, so 18 large calibre hits and the thing was still fighting.

so almost 3:1 odds in pure numbers, 4 CAs, 1 CL + 5 DDs versus 1 CL + 3 DDs, and surprise and basically, the Japs win the engagement because their AP didnt suffer a scratch and only one of their ships, a DD sustained more than 1 hit.

[:@]
User avatar
Veer
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:26 am
Location: Excuse me

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Veer »

so almost 3:1 odds in pure numbers, 4 CAs, 1 CL + 5 DDs versus 1 CL + 3 DDs, and surprise and basically, the Japs win the engagement because their AP didnt suffer a scratch and only one of their ships, a DD sustained more than 1 hit.

Stranger things have happened in real life.

Seems like a mighty large escort for just 1 AP. What was it carrying? The Emperor? [:D]
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
User avatar
Veer
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:26 am
Location: Excuse me

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Veer »

Flat Top Junkie:

I tried to re-create the battle you described. Night engagement, Tanaka in charge of Japs, Lee for allies. China Maru was loaded with troops (an SNLF unit) and supplies.
The results I got from two tries:

Try 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/08/42
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather: Clear

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Japanese Ships
CL Tenryu, Shell hits 37, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DD Yayoi, Shell hits 20, and is sunk
DD Yuzuki, Shell hits 23, and is sunk
DD Kikuzuki, Shell hits 21, on fire, heavy damage ***sunk***
AP China Maru, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
CA Portland
CA Chicago
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA Australia
CL Hobart, Shell hits 1
DD Sims
DD Walke, Shell hits 1
DD Phelps
DD Farragut
DD Aylwin

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 25


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Try 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/07/42
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather: Overcast

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Allied suprise

Japanese Ships
CL Tenryu, Shell hits 20, on fire, heavy damage
DD Yayoi, Shell hits 13, and is sunk
DD Yuzuki, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage ***sunk***
DD Kikuzuki, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage ***sunk***
AP China Maru

Allied Ships
CA Portland, Shell hits 3
CA Chicago
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 1
CA Australia
CL Hobart, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Sims
DD Walke
DD Phelps
DD Farragut, Shell hits 2
DD Aylwin

----------------------------------------------------------

So, I would say your 'results' were an abberation... [;)]
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
TAIL GUNNER
Posts: 1156
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Los Osos, CA

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by TAIL GUNNER »

Flat Top Junkie:

The commander you pick for your TF really, really matters....ALOT!

In Veer's example he's using Tanaka....an "aggressive" TF commander...
Tanaka is the Japanese best commander, but he's going to keep pressing the attack no matter what the losses...

I'd wager your opponent chose a "cautious" commander....and so when the heavy metal started flying, he popped smoke and bugged out...

Re: 18 shell hits on the Jap DD...
What kind of shells hit it? If it was secondary guns from the CAs and CLs probably puny 4" and 3" shells....in any case I bet it doesn't make it back to Rabaul...

Ever played Fighting Steel by SSI?
I always thought it gave a pretty good perspective on surface combat....even lowly DDs could take quite a bit of punishment before sinking....(except when a BB shell hit 'em square....)
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Warfare1 »

Flat Top Junkie:

As I mentioned earlier, a player's level of tolerance for lack of control in UV depends on each individual player.

It appears that both of you playing UV cannot seem to tolerate any results except those which you have predicted should be the outcome. I have rarely seen a real-world battle end with the exact results that the commanders initially expected would be the outcome.

You mention that you have read a lot of WWII books, yet you seem not to have remembered the unexpected results that have occurred as a result of all the variables that occur in battle:

1) In the German invasion of France in 1940, the Allies outnumbered the Germans and had more and better tanks, yet the Germans whipped the allies in 6 weeks. Yet, according to you, you would now be quitting the game if you were playing the allies because of the weird and unexpected results.

2) In the search for the Bismarck, the British used many ships, almost sank their own battleship with Swordfish planes, and fired 2,000 shells (with 400 hitting the Bismarck) before it was disabled. Yet, according to you, you would now be quitting the game if you were playing the British because of the weird and unexpected results.

3) German troops invaded the USSR in 1941, and almost succeeded in knocking out that country in a few weeks (in the first few days the Soviets lost thousands of planes). Yet, according to you, you would now be quitting the game if you were playing the Soviets because of the weird and unexpected results.

However, since Japan did not listen to Hitler and invade the USSR from the east, Stalin then was free to station dozens of Siberian divisions to the west, and launch counterattacks which drove the Germans back from Moscow. Yet, according to you, you would now be quitting the game if you were playing the Germans because of the weird and unexpected results.

4) At the Battle of Midway, the IJN had more carriers, more planes and more experience. Yet, in the real battle, the USA won and knocked out 4 IJN carriers. Yet, according to you, you would now be quitting the game if you were playing the IJN because of the weird and unexpected results.

5) In the Gulf War of 1991, although Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world, the war was over in 100 hours. The Iraqis lost hundreds of thousands of men and weapons; the USA lost less than 200 men. Yet, according to you, you would now be quitting the game if you were playing the Iraqis because of the weird and unexpected results.

I could go on and on... citing real world results of battles that should NOT have occurred but which happen all the time...

UV is a game that attempts to mirror the vagaries, uncertainty, FoW, and lack of early war experience among US fighting units. UV provides for great uncertainty and involves very little tactical control. Combat reports you receive are the result of input from lower commanders' input. This info can be wrong/inflated/correct due to the uncertainty of war.

Remember that naval action is subject to TURNS. That DD that was supposedly destroyed was still allowed to fire its guns BEFORE that main turret was destroyed (its turn).

Early war IJN ships and aircraft are usually going to cream USA ships and planes (due to lack of experience). Experienced IJN DDs could launch torps from 15,000 yards and could cause disruption among US ships.

UV is NOT a balanced game. This is crucial to understand. In the early months of the campaign the Japanese have the advantage in ships, planes, experience, and morale...

In scenario 17 for example, the allies are at a severe disadvantage, and attacking the Japanese in the first few months is a recipe for disaster.

The allies MUST take time to build up experience, ships and planes, while defending against better Japanese military units.

Carefully understanding the strengths and weaknesses of both participants in the battles, the units under your command, the rules, the FoW, and the uncertainty built into the game, are all crucial to both playing and enjoying UV.

This is NOT a point and click, bomb and destroy a target, type of game. It tries to the best of its ability to simulate the command abilities and restraints of a theatre commander, who gives orders but has very little control over the outcome of battles...



Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Flat Top Junkie

When measuring UV as a playable, worthwhile investment of gaming hours, it has to bear scrutiny against AH's masterpiece Flat Top. That is the yard stick - UV, and WitP for that matter, need to provide a big enough reason for us to decide to put away FT and turn to the computer.

Why then is UV still apparantly riddled with bemusing things that, some 10 turns into a new PBEM game, has us asking ourselves... "Why don't we just stick to Flat Top, because this is just plain dumb?"


Well, I played Flat Top for Years it was a classic game. I suspect that Gary Grigsby played it as well. However, there is no way that I would ever go back to it. Aside from the general superiorty that computers and email games have over board games. UV offers many facets that FT just never could.

Let me look at your gripes.

As examples....

Jap fleet at PM - unloading
Multiple airstrikes hitting it... however allied pilots prefer to target Minesweepers and Destroyers rather than Transports

How many times has this happened to you. Once, twenty, one hundred? Have you run some tests? Yes, sometimes this happens, happened in the real deal as well, but in four years of play I have not really considered this a problem or out of proportion. Usually, my planes find the important ships and hit them.

Jap transports moored and unloading - some allied aircraft fail to find the target???? If a task force is in friendly coastal waters then the probability of an air attack not locating them should be zero... you've got "eyes on" havn't you?

Nope, you are way off base here. We are talking 1942 with relatively inexperience pools of pilots. Japanese pilots were good pilots but lacked radios, and navigation skills for both sides was just average. The terrain was unfamiliar, Heavy clouds are the norm in tropical terrain- especially where the land meets water, visabilty is usually average or poor due to tropical haze. 1942 attack and air coordination was very poor for both sides. Failing to find the target or bombing the wrong target was not unusual. Basically, both sides were learning the ropes of carrier warfare and modern air combat on the fly (to use a pun).

Transports loaded with troops and ammo, when hit, never, ever sink.

Yes, they do. Sometimes it takes some time. Not all ships rolled over and sank right after they were attacked. Some lasted hours or days. I really have not seen much problem here.

12 unescorted Betty & Nell get through a US task force cap & flak and score hits on a US flat top


Rarely. What tests have you run to back this up?

30 escorted SBDs going the other way can't hit anything.

That should be the way it works.[;)]

US subs choose to attack IJN destroyers rather than transports

Not really, I find the attacks well mixed. Are you running tests?

Non SOPAC units cannot be commanded/transported making them useless.. why have them in the game?

This is a historical issue involving Australian law and politics. I defer to those more experienced in this matter.

We've now had loads of patches and updates, and we really do appreciate the Matrix folks, but some of these NPEs (Negative Playing Experiences) have to get taken care of - and it begs the question "Why havn't they already?"

You are talking about a four year old game with four year old code. Many of these issues have been addressed in the new WITP. Don't expect much more on UV.

Naval air attacks seem to have little cognacence of:
Screening (i.e. bombers having to negotiate AA ships before getting anywhere near a Flat Top).

This admittedly is an abstract. It is been a while but I don't recall it being much different or better in Flat Top.

Target Priority (Bombers should always attempt to attack targets of value and not useless auxilliaries)

I have no problem with this. Are you testing?


Damage modified by cargo (Just ask the folks on the Galahad in the Falklands Conflict what a 500lb bomb can do to a loaded troop transport - Any hit to such a vessel is catastrpohic. 3 500lb bomb hits to a AP loaded with an invading force should be enough to sink it, not just cause "18 troop casualties")

Yes, you will find this better modeled in WITP.


Sure fixing the little bugs is nice, but isn't it about time to fix some of the massive NPEs now?


I doubt there will be any more fixes. This is a old game and computer age runs just about like dog years. WITP is already one year old. Most of the issues that came up in UV are addressed in WITP. (Of couse it is more complex so there are tons of new issues)

That said, I am still playing UV and loving it. I loved Flat Top in its day but find UV to be a much better simulation. It is easier to play, easier to find opponents, easier to put the pieces away when done. The game works well and does a good job in simulating the South Pacific campaigns. I had my complaints and gripes-some were addressed and some never were. Not many of your gripes made my list. How many games have you played? How many opponents? You will find that some of these problems will correct themselves as you gain playing time.

Now the final reason why I don't play Flat Top or many board games any more. (yep, played them all). Fog of War. No board game ever came close to simulating true Fog of War. Computers while not perfect, generally allow game designers the freedom to build in FOW. To me, this is the biggest development in wargaming in the past three decades. FOW just adds so much to the gaming experience. It is like going back to black and white TV after having color. I just see no reason for it.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Flat Top Junkie
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:07 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Flat Top Junkie »

Warfare1

You site lots of example, and fair enough they are, but they are still the exception and not the norm

For us playing UV they've become the norm rather than the exception.
UV is a game that attempts to mirror the vagaries, uncertainty, FoW, and lack of early war experience among US fighting units. UV provides for great uncertainty and involves very little tactical control. Combat reports you receive are the result of input from lower commanders' input. This info can be wrong/inflated/correct due to the uncertainty of war.

As I think was discussed earlier, this is one of the most pressing arguments for combat reports to have 'Confidence Scores'.
Remember that naval action is subject to TURNS. That DD that was supposedly destroyed was still allowed to fire its guns BEFORE that main turret was destroyed (its turn).

Here you comment on what you think happened as opposed to what really happened. The DD lost its main turret and suffered severe engine damage from the first salvo from the Australia at 20,000 yds.

It then went on to fire in every subsequent round of combat as the ranges closed until the TFs broke off contact at 10,000 yds.

So, no, I havn't complained about it firing before it was disabled, just after.

I mean, how does a crippled DD that isn't even capable of maneuvering launch a successful torpedo attack at 10,000 yds. Hang on... I guess this is explainable too... perhaps my DD captain just stopped his engines directly in line with the IJN DD's tubes and sat there until he was hit.

[:)]
Early war IJN ships and aircraft are usually going to cream USA ships and planes (due to lack of experience). Experienced IJN DDs could launch torps from 15,000 yards and could cause disruption among US ships.

Quite clearly, but I find it amazing that my 'crap' Allied forces can sink tiny targets - MSWs & PGs - with unerring accuracy and yet can't even hit huge transports.
UV is NOT a balanced game. This is crucial to understand. In the early months of the campaign the Japanese have the advantage in ships, planes, experience, and morale...

I think I'm getting to understand this.

But it is a HUGE bugbear. e.g. this whole weather thing.... thunderstorm shuts down PM allowing no ait missions for the entire day. However, the weather does not effect the IJN unloading in the same hex at all. So they get an entire turn unloading unmolested. How does this work? Are we really saying that a thunderstorm long enough and severe enough to shut down an airfield the size of PM isn't going to effect LSUs bobbing around along the shoreline?

I've been replaying stuff against the AI rather than PBEM to see the results. Generally LBA can't hit a fish in a barrel no matter how many there are or how big the target. Only Allied SBA seems to have any joy in hitting IJN ships.
The allies MUST take time to build up experience, ships and planes, while defending against better Japanese military units.

So are you saying that players should avoid the early scenarios because of the general NPE and go for the longer campaigns where 'bad luck' will even itself out over the long haul?
This is NOT a point and click, bomb and destroy a target, type of game. It tries to the best of its ability to simulate the command abilities and restraints of a theatre commander, who gives orders but has very little control over the outcome of battles...

Very true. But, like I said, if UV was set in the European theatre, would you be saying the same thing as you watched an allied invasion fleet land unhindered in Portugal instead of Normandy or have the entire S.E. Englands fighter cover grounded every day during the Battle of Britain due to snow?

[:D]
Flat Top Junkie
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:07 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Flat Top Junkie »

Veer,

Thanks dude.... unfortunately it's been just one aberration after another.

If had just been a single ostrich-up then I wouldn't be quite so dispondant, but every turn has just been a catalogue of ridiculousness.

4 subs have now fired a total of 11 torpedoes at IJN APs and not hit a sausage.
1 sub has fired 2 torps at IJN MSWs (1 at each) and has hit and sunk both.

Given the relative size this is an extraordinary feat of marksmanship!

PM has been closed by Thunderstorms on 5 out of the first 10 turns.

Aircraft have failed to find fleets in the same hex. Despite having all day to do so.

I've seen 5 air attacks only hit PGs, MSWs or DDs, ignoring APs

Just to rub salt into the open wound, on the last turn, the IJN completed unloading... immediately the next air attack hits the now empty AP which is also underway again, rather than stationary at anchor, something I never succeeded in doing over 4 turns while it was sat disgorging troops.

The TF engagement on it's own would be an acceptable freak result, but taking everything else into account makes for an impossible game from my side of things.

Like I said, even my opponent is feeling crap because it's just one thing after another.
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Warfare1 »

Flat Top Junkie:

I could refute every one of your answers to my statements above, but I won't bother.

Clearly, the game UV has placed you and your friend outside your comfort zones. There is nothing wrong with that; not every game is suited to every player.

My suggestion is:

either take the time and learn the UV game system and play scenario 17;

OR

play a game that does not contain any ambiguity. A game that places you in a position where you can control and see everything, and where very little is left to chance, morale, weather, experience, etc... This type of wargame won't be very realistic, but at least you will be back within your comfort zone.

Take care.

Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
Flat Top Junkie
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:07 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Flat Top Junkie »

I could refute every one of your answers to my statements above, but I won't bother.

Why not? After all I'm just recounting the precise details of what is going on infront of me, rather than guessing about the whys and wherefors and trying to justify it by citing one off historical 'wierdnesses'. Stop guessing unless you can offer some real, game obcerved, reasons for what is going on. Anyone can find an example of any circumstance if they so choose, it's just pointless happenstance.... "Oh well, back in nineteen blah de blah this bomber crew crashed into a UFO" blah blah blah.
play a game that does not contain any ambiguity. A game that places you in a position where you can control and see everything, and where very little is left to chance, morale, weather, experience, etc... This type of wargame won't be very realistic, but at least you will be back within your comfort zone.

Oh more waffle about comfort levels and questioning our gaming abilities. Perhaps you could offer some real information rather than just try and slag people off. It's easy to spout off on a message board, perhaps you could bring your limited skills and obvious inability to question anything about the game to the table? You know nothing about us save for the fact that we have questioned the bizarre goings on in this game.

we're not talking about ambiguity... ambiguity or luck should be assessed fairly and be balanced across BOTH side in the game. Either this is simply not the case with UV or this has been one of the most unluckiest weeks of warfare of all time.

You know something, we've continued the game, because people here have said... "it'll all balance out, it's just bad luck"

Well, did it balance out... No, it got worse!

Perhaps you can explain why my bomber crews can now suddenly hit IJN transports now that they have finished unloading?

Can you explain why a US CV doesn't get a single one of it's fighters off the deck with a CAP level of 60% and fully available aircraft and pilots? As a result - scratch one flat-top

You waffle on about our comfort zone.. and yet you know nothing about my opponent and I's gaming experience. You see, we can play things like ASL, Flat Top, War & Peace & Air War and enjoy them.

OUR - not just mine - our enjoyment level of this return to UV has been zero. Every single turn has just been a lop-sided tirade of crazy goings on. I'm sorry, but I didn't read anything in the rule book where it says that "the AI will rig the game so that IJN transports always finish unloading before sustaining any damage". But, strangely that's exactly what has happened. I know I didn't get an influx of new bomber crews, but all of a suffen they do more damage in one turn than they have in the previous 6 put together.

You just seem to want to defend the game at all costs rather than admit it's short-comings and if the AI is favouring one side, even in PBEM, then that makes UV unplayable and unenjoyable.. If most of the scenarios are hopelessly unbalanced then why not say so. If the AI is unequally balanced then say so.

Stop making assumptions about our gaming abilities and experience, unless of course you're going to be travelling to Origins and can put your 'comfort level' to the test.

User avatar
Veer
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:26 am
Location: Excuse me

RE: The 'just plain dumb' factor

Post by Veer »

Can you explain why a US CV doesn't get a single one of it's fighters off the deck with a CAP level of 60% and fully available aircraft and pilots?

There is no reason for this to happen. If you have a save or combat replay I would post it in the bug report forum. AFAIK you're the first person to report this problem. [8D]
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”