Matrix Games Forums

Very much appreciate your post!

Originally posted by denisonh
You still have not demonstrated how targeting the specific TF is any better than setting a priority.

Simply because I can set a base for the bomb an airfield or port option, doesn't make it better for Naval Attack. The specifics are unnecessary and adds potential gameyness.

Yes, gameyness.

Take this example: Player A has TF 1 with 3 CVs is spotted. Player A creates a new TF 2 with the carriers, leaving 1 DD in the previous TF 1.

Player B targets TF 1, and sinks a DD.

Setting a priority makes more sense, and eliminates the possible technique of the TF shuffle.

And you have not read my posts well at all...

(Posted by Grumbling Grogn Tuesday 0608 PM 07 Jan 03)
Codewise the game engine would be best served if it simply recorded what the player "sees" as that TF and then type it as a "CV group", "surface combat group" or a "transport group", etc... and by general size. Then when the next turn rolls around and your mystic ever-changing TF has mutated the game will search for a TF of the closest match to the type you "targeted". Codewise it really is not that hard to do.

Look, this is basically just setting priority types. BUT the interface is much cleaner in that all the player has to do is click on the TF he wants to target instead of a damnable dropdown list with 4-8 choices. It also meshes well with the existing targeting methods already in use.

"Assigning" a specific TF for attack does not mean that the attack is somehow now "tied" to TF201 :rolleyes: Nobody has ever suggested that. You are reading a lot of negative into the simple interface of clicking on a TF. The "click" is simply an input method to allow the game to set priorities (as I clearly noted in the above quoted post).

Appreciate the post Paul.

Thank You.

Generally, the guys at 2x3 seem to have poured concrete
around their feet on this issue. So be it. But as a way of
at least removing some of the more irritaiting bonehead
decisions from the AI I'd like to suggest something for the
next "patch".

Would you at least put a secondary logic loop into the AI's
targeting proceedures that favored "normal range" targets
over "extended range" ones? And a bias that favored the
nearer over those farther away? "At sea" over "docked"?

If the AI would behave in a more rational manner, most of the
complaints/problems of this whole massive discussion would
go away. I've seen very little from the "complaining side" to
suggest that they have any problem with strikes "going wrong"
on occasion. The real complaint seems always to have been
how WILDLY wrong they go on a semi-regular basis. And that
shouldn't be that hard to patch.

A simple fix ???

Naval Attack/Search missions DO NOT overfly ports/bases

Port Attack/Recon missions DO overfly ports/bases

This resolves the issue quite simply, putting control back in the players hands without having to change any interface coding at all.

Matrix should be able to add a test to the Naval checking code to invalidate hexes that contain ports/bases fairly easy.

At the same time, I think they would have to increase the hex based attack missions likelihood of diverting to attack naval targets in that hex even though they are tasked with a different mission (ie: port based attacks should get ANY ships in the hex)

This does not resolve people wanting to be able to directly target a specific TF, but with the turn around time in information coming back up the chain of command, it is probably unrealistic to expect direct targetting control for a non-hex (ie: moving targets) in a theater level game. They would have the option of selecting the port specifically and hope the ships are still in the port hex.

One thing I would like to see is automatic local command, where if a bunch of tranports show up at your base where aircraft are stationed, they should automatically forget what they are doing and defend their base to the best of their efforts! Consider it a "React to Enemy" option for Air assets, similar to the way surface/air TF's react now.

This does not resolve people wanting to be able to directly target a specific TF, but with the turn around time in information coming back up the chain of command, it is probably unrealistic to expect direct targeting control for a non-hex (i.e.: moving targets) in a theater level game. They would have the option of selecting the port specifically and hope the ships are still in the port hex.

When this games restricts me to playing only the role of this mythic person of higher command this argument will be valid.

But as long as I have to:

1. Break each transport down into TFs when they arrive by the score
2. Assign loads
3. Assign routine supply routes
4. Re-assign routes and loads after the enemy carriers chase my routine supply runs off their routes
5. Set CAP % by air unit for each base for each day
6. Tell my local commanders who to "Stand down"
7. Tell my local commanders who to train
8. Tell my local commanders how much to train my units each day they are on stand down
9. Plot each SC and minesweeper in each port each day
10. Tell each of my ships to refuel or not (when they do not auto refuel)
11. Tell my air transport missions who to supply each day
12. Tell my air transport missions not to fly until they all die and to instead take a rest once in awhile
13. Tell my flight leaders what altitude to fly for every mission they run
14. Tell my local commander's where to put his LRCAP
15. Tell my local commanders what % and what unit to have on naval search each day for each air base/carrier (indiviual cruisers with float planes!)
16. Tell my local commanders what unit and what % for CAP each day for each air base/carrier
17. Tell my local commanders what unit and what % for ASW each day for each air base/carrier
18. Tell my local commanders where to place his ground units by 30mile increments
19. Tell my local commanders how to attack a position (?!)
20. Tell my local commanders how/which transport to load each unit on to when he ships out units
21. Tell my local commanders which exact target to strike (base, port, ground, airfield) with exactly which air unit each day for each air base
22. Tell my individual ships down to the size of a PG/SC at sea exactly where to move each day down to the nearest 30 miles
    [/list=1]
    (There are more...)
    
    As long as I have to do these things to get the best out of the AI, I would like to be able to tell my local commander that perhaps it would be a good idea if he focused his air strikes on the enemy TF that we have been tracking heading his way for two days.
    
    Some say this is "un-historical". I should go back to deciding if my rear bases need another load of supplies or fuel or whether my SC should go on another "Shakedown Cruise" or not. That these things are much more in line with what a "strategic commander" would be dealing with. I am sorry, I can not even type that with a straight face. :rolleyes:

GG, thats one of the reasons I suggested the React to Enemy for bases with aircraft capable of interfering with the landing. While thinking of it, perhaps a Base setting "React to Enemy" would be the ideal thing. Troops stationed there & Aircraft stationed there would rise up and fight off the invasion force based on this setting, just as Air and Surface TF's react now.

You sound like me, wanting Harpoon 2 level of control in a strategy game!

Lets take UV's theater level scale and impose it into Close Combat 5 & Harpoon II and call it perfection!

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
You sound like me, wanting Harpoon 2 level of control in a strategy game!

Honestly, I would be just as happy if they took away the "micro managing" items already in the game and made the AI a bit more robust. Then we could all honestly call it a strategic level game.

BUT, if I have to micro manage the details like I listed, I don't think managing the most fun aspect of the game (i.e. fleet engagements) is too much to ask.

Grumblin',

With all due respect, please realize that Matrix(and virtually everyone else!) does understand what you want. What Paul is saying is that they've made the design decision to have different levels of micro-management(or lack thereof) within the game.

You wanted "X", they have told you "Sorry, we're not going to give you "X".

How many more posts on the subject are you going to generate before you realize that you've lost this fight?

Originally posted by Bax
Grumblin',

With all due respect, please realize that Matrix(and virtually everyone else!) does understand what you want. What Paul is saying is that they've made the design decision to have different levels of micro-management(or lack thereof) within the game.

You wanted "X", they have told you "Sorry, we're not going to give you "X".

How many more posts on the subject are you going to generate before you realize that you've lost this fight?

With all due respect: That is not what has been posted by "Matrix". How you can read that into the posts is beyond me.

I read Paul's last post. I read the quote by Mr. Heath the first time it was made and I have even quoted it myself. And that is not what it says.

I also seem to remember Paul being the one that posted:

(Posted by Paul Vebber 01/02/2003)
IF it were a tactical game then the player would make tactical decesions like what search arcs to deploy search planes in and overseeing the tactical execution of naval air strikes.

BUT ITS NOT A TACTICAL GAME, and from your situation room in the rear, running the whole theater, you can't directly oversee that tactical execution.


(Also posted by Paul Vebber 01/02/2003)
There can be disagreement on what constitutes "operational decision making" in a few areas, but overall the game strives to put you in the role of the Three-Star back hearing the situation reports come in after planning the operation, not CAG giving tactical orders.

The whole point of the game is that if you use sound operational level planning, then more times than not your will rewarded with tactical victory, but to argue that the game doesn't allow you to make up for poor operational decisionmaking by "pulling your fat out of the fire" with tactical decisions, well you are just reaping what you sow.

If you have properly "set the table" operationally for that major fleet action, then there is no need to suddenly have to "be the CAG" to win. You have to look at what is going one from an "operational level" mindset, not a tactical one. You position yourself and gather your intelligence, THEN you take action. WHen you do that wwell in the game it rewards you with few "stupid decisions".

Sorry, but it seems to me from those posts that Paul is of the belief that sending my SC out on shake down cruises and setting my training % for my C47s in the rear and... <insert previous lengthy list here> are all "operational" level decisions. While trying to point my air assets at the most priority enemy TF I have been tracking for two days is too "tactical" for UV. Thus it is not in the game. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but it seems to me from those posts that Paul is of the belief that sending my SC out on shake down cruises and setting my training % for my C47s in the rear and... <insert previous lengthy list here> are all "operational" level decisions. While trying to point my air assets as the most priority enemy TF I have been tracking for two days is too "tactical" for UV. Thus it is not in the game.

No, you quote quite clearly that I said "there can be disagreement" on what constitutes operational level decision making. I or any other person has there own ideas about what is encompassed by "operational warfare". I can post a list of 99 items and get 99 responses as to which are "operational" and which "tactical" and which an operational level commander should be allowed to influence and which he should not. And which are the province of operational art, and which not. And in what various situations any given list applies.

Unless you want a game that "plays itself" and informs afterward if you win, your "list" is pretty ridiculous.

1,2,3,4. Yes, deciding the organization of groups of transports and assigning them to support your operational plans is something you have to do. The AI can't read your mind and know what you want to do with them. If you group transports logically and keep your plans simple and direct, then you barge hubs take care of a lot it, and otherwise it means managing maybe 6 or 8 logistics convoys on 3 or 4 main routes. You can make it hard on yourself by not planning well and having scads of transport convoys running around, but that's your choice. IF enemy carriers runs amok in your SLOCs then you are lucky you have transports to reorganize...

5,6,7,8. Again, if you make an operational plan, and follow it, you only have to mess with these things sporatically. Yes it would be nice to be able to "automate" the cycles of these things in WitP where there are so many more units. But in my "battle rhythm" of cycling through my squadrons to check their status, its a matter of a couple mouse clicks to change these things. The key once again is to have a PLAN for these things. You can fret over each individual squadron, trying to optimize it, but if you "play the game like an operational commander" then you come up with a set of "standard operating procedures" and stick with them and establish a "battle rhythm" that supports it, it becomes second nature and adds a minute or two to cycling through your squadrons checking status. You can fall into the trap some operational commanders fall into and try to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of your squadrons, but you don't have to.

9. No, if you don't want to you can leave them to their business without interference. PUt the Mine sweepers in an MIW TF and teh SCs into an ASW TF and they do just fine.

10. OR let them auto refuel and leave them alone. You make the call - AI can;t read you mind to figure when your mission is important enough to risk running out of fuel. Plan well so its not an issue.

11. Sure a "keep flying the mission until x supply is transferred" would be nice, but I generally only have a couple places I have to supply by air, so again, establish a 'battle rhythm' and it takes a couple mouse clicks on that squadron when you check it out.

12. Ability to establish "cycles" would be nice but again its a question of establishing a "plan" and sticking too it. Sure "automated planning" would be nice, but the what is the tradeoff between what you spend valuable programming resources on to save the player a few mouse clicks?

13. Again - once you establish the SOP for this, they remember it until you change it.

14. How does the AI read your mind about that? :rolleyes: Make plan that doesn't require LRCAP, or you have to overrule the tactical commander and direct his CAP to support your OPLAN.

15,16,17 Again you have a OPERATIONAL PLAN don't you, or do just task every squadron based on what feels good at the moment? ONce you set these for a given operation, nobody makes you mess with them.

18,19,22. LOL, right the AI should move your ground troops and TFs for you? And decide if they are supposed to attack or defend or whatnot? That is part of operational planning too...and not much of a game if you just sit back and watch. And how do you communicate to the computer what you want to do?

20. IF you organize them into a task force and hit "load troops" you just click on the units to load and they figure it out quite nicely, even pressing additional unassigned ships into service if need be.

21. This is called "designating operational fires" and is the meat of an operational plan. And you can organize your plan so the squadrons of a specific type have a given mission and can assign multiple squadrons of a given type to the same mission. IF you play multiple day turns they will keep trying to do it. Or you can wing it ad hoc and get overwhlemed trying to figure out at "the moment of execution" what all your squadrons should be doing.

All those things are part of planning and executing an Operational plan. Many of these things are cyclical, and you don;t seem to understand that while the decision of what to do may be tactical but the CYCLE used is operational. LIe I said I would like to see the ability to automate these cycles - but frankly most UV scens are small enough that the time it takes to assimilate the status info on each squadron and "check the status of the plan" makes the mouse clicks to change something a minor nuisence at worst and at best required info I have to communicate to the game SOMEHOW to inform it of a shift between phases in a plan.

Its easy to confuse a tactical decision, with the operational level SEQUENCING of tactical decisions. YEs each decision may be tactical, but the SOP or cycle established for making that tactical decision is an OPERATIONAL one.

I seems the idea of a "battle rhythem" may be new to some. Establishing a battel rhythem means establishing a standard sequence for executing game tasks. It will likely take writing it down for a while until it becomes second nature, but if you approach the game by writing down your objectives, then the broad mission you want to accomplish to achieve those objctives, and then the "SOPs" or cycles for simplying the "tactical decision making" or the triggers for making changes to the "tactical configuration" of your units you begin to see that the application of "Operational art" is not strictly done at the operatioal level of war. Good operational art is providing good guidance for tactcial decisionmaking to your subordinates.

The game is an exellent "case study" in executing "operational art" and the one thing that is the biggest mistake in applying operational art is to think that you as the operational commander are the best positioned to make "the key tactical decision" - THAT should be made by those closest to the enemy. That is probably the hardest lesson to learn in the "real world" and the mistake most commonly "lesson re-learned".

And the reason for that is that you don't RELIABLY get the information you need to make those decisions as an operational commander. IF fyou have really "Tracked a TF for two days" then it will be pretty rare in the game for your suborinates to go off and do something silly, and when they do its typically becasue the situation isn't as cut and dried as the "icon view" of the game board makes it out to be.

So one can either complain about why playing the game haphazardly without any real operational planning or establishing a "battle rhythm" leads to a desire to "take tactical control" (that in teh real world would likely mean failure) at the last minute to attack a target of opportunity. If that is your "plan", then you will most likely lose whether you had tactical control or not.

Again you don't have a good gauge for the relative level of confidence the tactical commander has regarding the contacts exact wherabouts. You may have been "tracking it for two days" but that may mean a search plane making contact every 5 or 6 hours updating its position.

Even giving orders every 12 hours you would have no way of knowing that a given task force would be engagable by the time the order gets there. Airbases and ports don't move, ships do, so in the context of 1 or multiple day turns, telling a TF to "attack that contact you might have held 12 or 18 hours ago and I don't really know if you still hold it or not but think I know better than you that its the most important" sounds about as silly as it would be to the TF commander who would promptly reply with a "message garbled please resend". And if you haven't tried it, to really capture the time delays involved in the real campaign try playing on 3 day turns...

OR one can create and refine an operational plan, and establish a supporting battle rhythm and attempt to minimize the number of situations where the "stupid AI" can muck it up...and sympathize with your real world counterpart when they do...and realize that when that tantalizing group of targets shows up on the map, you really don't have a lot fo idea about the "track quality" just that someone, in the past 24 hours happened to report in that they saw them.

We will keep looking for ways to make the game more satisfying for those that do the latter, hopefully reducing some of the "AI stupidity" but are not going to change the fundamental design decision that the game is about operationally setting up the conditions to make tactical victories more probable, not about "knee jerking" to attack what appears most desireable at the moment.

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
With all due respect: That is not what has been posted by "Matrix". How you can read that into the posts is beyond me.

I read Paul's last post. I read the quote by Mr. Heath the first time it was made and I have even quoted it myself. And that is not what it says.

I also seem to remember Paul being the one that posted:


Sorry, but it seems to me from those posts that Paul is of the belief that sending my SC out on shake down cruises and setting my training % for my C47s in the rear and... <insert previous lengthy list here> are all "operational" level decisions. While trying to point my air assets at the most priority enemy TF I have been tracking for two days is too "tactical" for UV. Thus it is not in the game. :rolleyes:

Grumber,

Orders for shake down cruises ARE given at the OPERATIONAL fleet level. Individual captians or TF commanders do not make those decsions. Training guidlines and shedules are also OPERATIONAL decisions. Squadron commanders can not arbitrarly pull his squadron off the line for training whenever he feels.

In fact many of the items in your long list CAN be considered operational.

Ground attacks? The game only allows you to choose between bombardment only, attack and all out attack, or defend. These general orders are operational. Tactical decisions would be flanking attacks, diversionary attacks and targeting specific points.

LRCP%? Why do you use LRCAP? To cover TFs or bases. A operational decision. The percentage simply reflects the amount of effort to accomplish this, ie Maxim, normal, minimal ect.... Again that is an operational decision.

CAP%. Also a reflection of operational effort. Example if your orders are to sink an enemies carriers at all cost. Then a greater % of escort and hence a lesser % of CAP would be called for. You cant decide on which pilots fly, when, how long or what tactics to use.

Creating transport TFs. Absolutely OPERATIONAL. Theater command decided what ships to be put together into what TFs and what specific troops and supplies should be loaded on what specific ships.

I can go on but Im getting tired of typing.

Regards

PS

I do agree that we should differentiate between attacking ships in port and at sea. This really should be a relatively simple matter since there is already a port attack command.

I generally support Matrix's approach to this issue. Honestly, I don't often have complaints about which targets are chosen. On the few occasions when things go awry, I don't really mind; it's part of the fun to see snafus. And my opponent has to play by the same rules. I wouldn't mind more control over naval targeting -- say, a priority button or something -- but to me, the game is already oodles of fun.

I wonder whether one's reaction to this issue depends on the length of scenario you play. I like to play the long scenarios, which place a premium on careful planning, management of assets, logistics, strategic warfare, and the ability to think ahead. In longer scenarios, any one naval battle -- even the loss of a couple CVs -- isn't necessarily decisive. There will another battle another day, to say nothing of reinforcements, and in the meantime there is a larger strategic picture to contend with. In a short scenario, much more depends on the outcome of one or two battles.

For me there is one important point.

Whether it be a long scenario or a short scenario – I will set a strategy. My strategy might be to destroy enemy transports or it might be to make the enemy CVs come out and fight.

I will carefully prepare supplies, support and all the logistics necessary to send squadrons of aircraft forward.

Once the enemy ships are located – I want to attack based on my current strategy.

I need my aircraft to attack one TF or another based on my current strategy. There is a difference between a stuff -up and a deliberate disobediance of orders.

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
The game is an exellent "case study" in executing "operational art" and the one thing that is the biggest mistake in applying operational art is to think that you as the operational commander are the best positioned to make "the key tactical decision" - THAT should be made by those closest to the enemy. That is probably the hardest lesson to learn in the "real world" and the mistake most commonly "lesson re-learned".

This may be true in real life but in game terms the AI is not very astute at weighing threats and responding appropriately. Until the AI is as effective as a real life commander, as a player I feel the need for a mechanism that will help my AI subordinates make good decisions.

I find myself using subs and especially surface combatants quite ahistorically because I can't trust the land based air to stick to the plan and interdict enemy naval forces with any consistency. In my games the Battle of the Bismarck Sea is fought by cruisers and PT boats. For me, the B25s can only be trusted to perform base attacks. I'm not saying that the B25s never attack ships at sea, they do. Unfortunately though, they will sometimes head to Rabaul where 200 zeros are stationed and I have no fighters with long enough reach to escort them.

Is this terrible? No. However, it's so absurd that it taints the game for me. There is absolutely no "fog of war" reason for such an action.

Just a thought, but why not give the player the option, adjusted by settings, to do what so many people are asking for?

Unless the codeing is too difficult to do, I don't see why not. I don't personally agree with a lot of what people are saying....I don't feel the need to target enemy CF's...but a lot of people do, and a lot of people are leaving the game, or atleast threating to.

What we have found in our company, is that for every person that logs a major complaint, there are 10 people who feel the same way, but haven't said anything.

For instance:

50 people complained about not being able to manage targets = 500 people who actually feel that way.

This isn't hard fact, its just the ratio that we have come up with, and has worked for us.

So saying that, it would be just good buisness to add the major features that players are asking for. Not ruining your vision for the masses, it could be external settings. That would satisfy both camps. You can drill people all you want to about how they Should be playing your game, but it is a game. If its not fun for any reason, people just won't play. Even worse, they will return it....and even worse then that, they will tell anyone who will listen, why they shouldn't buy your game. Look at Hearts of Iron on this forum. If I hadn't of bought it before I read that thread, I probably would have passed. Even though I enjoyed it, more then most games I have gotten last year, that many bad reviews by players is enough for me. I trust other gamers more then I do PC Gamer.

Actually I would be curious to know how many changes you have made based on player feed back.

Personally I would like to see some AI management control...specifically for Air Squadrons. I have so many squadrons that I have to manually stand down, and then set the other half that was off the previous turn to take over for the squads getting a break. A little tedious.

Overall though, I have to say I really enjoyed the game. No game is perfect, and UV is no exception.

*Edit - Post written with WiTP in mind. It was in my mind, just didn't come out that way.

We micro-managers want total control!!!!

Please give it to us, it will make us love you.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
When this games restricts me to playing only the role of this mythic person of higher command this argument will be valid.

But as long as I have to:

1. Break each transport down into TFs when they arrive by the score
2. Assign loads
3. Assign routine supply routes
4. Re-assign routes and loads after the enemy carriers chase my routine supply runs off their routes
5. Set CAP % by air unit for each base for each day
6. Tell my local commanders who to "Stand down"
7. Tell my local commanders who to train
8. Tell my local commanders how much to train my units each day they are on stand down
9. Plot each SC and minesweeper in each port each day
10. Tell each of my ships to refuel or not (when they do not auto refuel)
11. Tell my air transport missions who to supply each day
12. Tell my air transport missions not to fly until they all die and to instead take a rest once in awhile
13. Tell my flight leaders what altitude to fly for every mission they run
14. Tell my local commander's where to put his LRCAP
15. Tell my local commanders what % and what unit to have on naval search each day for each air base/carrier (indiviual cruisers with float planes!)
16. Tell my local commanders what unit and what % for CAP each day for each air base/carrier
17. Tell my local commanders what unit and what % for ASW each day for each air base/carrier
18. Tell my local commanders where to place his ground units by 30mile increments
19. Tell my local commanders how to attack a position (?!)
20. Tell my local commanders how/which transport to load each unit on to when he ships out units
21. Tell my local commanders which exact target to strike (base, port, ground, airfield) with exactly which air unit each day for each air base
22. Tell my individual ships down to the size of a PG/SC at sea exactly where to move each day down to the nearest 30 miles
    [/list=1]
    (There are more...)
    
    As long as I have to do these things to get the best out of the AI, I would like to be able to tell my local commander that perhaps it would be a good idea if he focused his air strikes on the enemy TF that we have been tracking heading his way for two days.
    
    Some say this is "un-historical". I should go back to deciding if my rear bases need another load of supplies or fuel or whether my SC should go on another "Shakedown Cruise" or not. That these things are much more in line with what a "strategic commander" would be dealing with. I am sorry, I can not even type that with a straight face. :rolleyes:

Hey Grog, i am with you brother, i go through all the micro managing you have listed then when it gets hot and heavy my frickin planes are flyin the wrong direction. it drives me nuts, comes on guys, i see the advancing fleets, i want to command my air arm to hit them and hit them hard, not fly in the other direction. why are there no arcs setup? i got recon planes flyin all over the place except for were i want to scout. if i need to send my plane NE or due E to scout or to attack i think i need to be able to due so. this is way to lose, at least matrix reads the boards and replies. to tell you the truth , i bought the game based on the great reviews, i got into playin it and learning all the new terms, the only disappointment ive had with a otherwise good game is way the air arm is handled. just doesnt seem right. like grog has posted many times, we micromanage so many things in the game except what i think is the one of the most important. i sure hope somthing is done and also hope WITP handles this aspect better then this game does.

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
In case some missed it, David Heath wrote:

That said, as David and I both posted, that DOES NOT MEAN that we have ruled out further refinement of the AI, AND/OR the possibility of adding additional options to influence that AI. Nearly 1 in 2 think that sort of change is desireable and we hear you.

We've all read the posts and you can feel free to post but I think this argument has pretty much run its course and circled back a few times.

The bottom line is - no player controlled stikes BUT the likelihood for continued evolution of the AI and player influences on it. (Though any such change would likely be a WitP development that would be backfit to UV when that game comes out.)

We are listening and do play the game ourselves and do understand the situation. But at his point the game is pretty much what it is. WitP is the focus of attention now, and when that is ready, we will see what from it is appropriate to backfit into UV.

Hi,

I'd love to hear what kind of improvements are considered... And might such changes be applied before 2004(when it was when WIP was to be released... )? And is there goingto be any change for changes to UV before WIP? What is likehood beeing able to influence AI to attack in specific area(for example in 15x15 hex area)... How about specific ship types? etc...

Never thought I would have to say this, but appriciate the fact that matrix does not ban people for posting negative comments, unlike some companies which I won't mention *cough*Paradox*cough