Another reason why we should be able to set air mission targets ourselves.

[pasternakski]

J7B 5by5.

[Grumbling Grogn]

I resonate very highly with both of these last three. (but I still say it is a strategy level game )

[Krec]

Great post Ron.

Paul did write: No, the issue and has always been (for us anyway) "what should Matrix do to improve its customers enjoyment of Uncommon Valor". We have answered that question with "we think there are things we can do, but they are being done to WitP and will be backfit as appropriate

hey thats fine by me, i know there is a better way, its just a matter of time before there is a fix. this has been a very interesting topic and i know it's not falling on deaf ears. Paul & all at Matrix keep up doin what you do making great games.

[Leahi]

_____________________________________________________
Yup, But Coral Sea and Midway were CV on CV battles.

CV on CV is pretty immaterial to the argument because so far the argument has revolved pretty much around the allocation of land based air. I don't think many people have much heartburn with your ability to go spoiling for a carrier a battle or refuse one? Or the results when they occur?
____________________________________________________Sorry, Mr. Vebber, but I just reviewed most of the 13 pages in this thread and many of the posts do complain about the handling of air strikes in CV on CV battles. In fact, the post that started this thread complains about it.

Not an important point -- but I would like to make it clear that my comments were intended to address both land-based and CV-based aircraft. I'm gaining some optimism that you guys at Matrix may be looking into improvements in this area. At one point the tone was a rather rigid "We will not be making any changes in TF selection," which elicited a regrettably rude comment from me (which I've since retracted). Appreciate it if you guys actually are responding tangibly to our comments.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by mjk428
You created the poll that's true but not the debate. Look at the quote in your first post in that thread. It was to the affect of: 50% of the people are unhappy TO SOME DEGREE and 50% are happy the way it is. The third option in your poll clearly requires a change, so realistically those that chose that option should be considered part of those that are "unhappy".

Unfortunately the argument has been presented in the extreme and then ridiculed (not by you). Nowhere has anyone made the statement that 50% want direct control of TF targetting.

edit -

It's interesting that I voted for option 3 and considered myself part of the "50%" while you voted the same and considered yourself opposed to the fictional "50%".

The third option in your poll clearly requires a change, so realistically those that chose that option should be considered part of those that are "unhappy".

Once again, I cannot fully agree. I do not dispute that wanting to add prioritization is wanting a change, but characterizing everyone who selected option #3 calling for some prioritization "unhappy" is a stretch.

I am not unhappy. I think it is good and can get better.

That is an important distinction, particularly since the statment associated with the 50% referenced frustration to the point if it wasn't fixed, they would not be buying future Matrix products.

But if half of the purchassers are totally frustraited
by the "naval strike" results (or lack thereof), then the designers
need to address those concerns (whether they agree with them or not) or face the very real possibility that they have reduced
the market for any future titles by HALF.

That is the reason I had put that quote in the initial post was to try and clarify what the "upset over lack of control" referenced.

If you are one of the 50% ready to shelve UV and put off buying another product , such as WitP, because of this problem, your one of the 50%.

I can only apologze for lack of clarity if it wasn't interpreted as such.

As a note: It seems that I have not experienced the problems of misguided airstrikes to the extent some others apparently have(almost none in the 7 PBEM games I have going currently, other than 1 "gone to Rabaul" mission that decimated some highly trained Hudsons Sqns). I generally find my LBA quite effective in hitting the correct targets, barring weather.

[Piiska]

I think Ron with his post about “Commander’s Intent” hit the nail on the head.

This was exactly what I was trying to say. In spite of UV being an incredibly well done war game, in time it has started to increasingly bother me that I’m not able to communicate to subordinates “my vision”, or my “commander’s intent”.

Possibility to set up and alter your operational guidelines for your subordinates would truly lift UV, or WITP, one step closer to perfection.

Thanks for GG for being stubborn, thanks for Ron posting the succinct “Commander’s Intent” post and thanks for Paul & Co, for listening to us –it’s amazing how good support you guys give us.

I acknowledge that if there will be changes made to system, it will happen with WITP and that’s cool. Count me in.

[mjk428]

Originally posted by denisonh
Once again, I cannot fully agree. I do not dispute that wanting to add prioritization is wanting a change, but characterizing everyone who selected option #3 calling for some prioritization "unhappy" is a stretch.

I am not unhappy. I think it is good and can get better.

That is an important distinction, particularly since the statment associated with the 50% referenced frustration to the point if it wasn't fixed, they would not be buying future Matrix products.

That is the reason I had put that quote in the initial post was to try and clarify what the "upset over lack of control" referenced.

If you are one of the 50% ready to shelve UV and put off buying another product , such as WitP, because of this problem, your one of the 50%.

I can only apologze for lack of clarity if it wasn't interpreted as such.

It appears that we are in near complete agreement as far as our satisfaction with UV goes. I'm not unhappy but I do believe that the game would be significantly improved by many of the suggestions in this thread. The only aspect of the problem that I've experienced to the point of annoyance is land based air attacking bases when I intend for them to attack ships at sea. I'd love it if this was addressed in either UV or WITP. BTW - I'd buy WITP today if it was available.

As far as the "50%" goes, it is open to interpretation what the intent was when it was first mentioned. One thing that's apparent from the polls is that much less than 50% (33%) are fully content with the current way naval attacks are handled. According to Cap&Gown, a few months ago it was 50%. It could be that as new players come along &/or players experience this issue more, satisfaction has declined. If I was at Matrix I would make note of that. I believe they have. David Heath said as much many pages back.

Finally, it seems that overall satisfaction of UV is high even from most of those that are "unhappy" with this particular issue. We all have that in common and hopefully we will keep that in mind.

[juliet7bravo]

A setup screen for each base and TF...

reaction moves: yes/no (both carrier reactions and response to carriers)

port attacks: yes/no

target priorities: (arrange numerically)
(1) CV TF
(2) Bomb/SC TF
(3) AP TF
(4) AK TF
(5) Light units (PT/MSW/barge)

AC naval attack (ground attacks unchanged) radius:

air units auto rest at _ level of fatigue:

Settings overridden by FOW, sh!t happens, or the commanders discretion based on skill (or lack of) and personality. Default settings as they are now, only change them if you want to. Perhaps could have the commanders occassionally ask permission to attack priority targets outside their boundaries

[Mike Scholl]

As no one else seems to have noticed it, I'd like to take a note
here to applaude 2x3 for a breakthrough in war gaming. As all
of us probably know, designing a decent AI for a strategy game
is extremely difficult. And for a War Game, almost unachievable.
Sid Meier found an answer, and still get lauded for it. Puting a
decent, but not exceptional AI in the hands of multiple game
opponants meant that while the player struggled with one or two
of his enemies, the rest were off somewhere building up and getting ahead of you. Simple, clever, and got Sid "game-designerof the decade" kudos from all sides.

Now 2x3 may have hit on something almost as elegant with the
UNCOMMON VALOR engine. As it seems almost impossible to
make an AI "smart", make BOTH sides use it in the most critical
tactical area of the game. "Level the field" in the air/sea battle.
It's simple, and it's brilliant. Well done, guys! You ALMOST pulled
it off.

The problem is that the more "bonehead" logic choices made by
the AI are now visable to the player. And the "targeting loop"
of the naval attack chioce makes some glaringly BAD ones. Now
we all know there were plenty of "wrong targets" hit during the
Second World War. (Thank God you didn't include the very real
possibility of attacking your own side) But your AI makes some
really silly and ahistorical ones. It seems to have two major
biases when choosing a target. 1) Is there a carrier present?
And 2), has anything been sent to attack it yet?

The second is a real problem, as it has the AI scattering "penny-
packet" attacks all over Hell and gone instead of concentraiting
on real threats. A target that can only be reached by a B-17 at
extended range is NOT a current threat---it can be put off until
tomorrow. Closer enemy TF's that can be hit with multiple and
coordinated strikes are much more valuable because they are
A) CLOSER, and therefor more of a threat to do something to
YOU! And B) they are CLOSER, which means you have a much
better opportunity to gang-up and DO SOMETHING to them.

Players don't object to hitting the WRONG target---they get
furious when they watch their assets hitting STUPID targets.
And actually the computer playing the other side would no
doubt be just as frustraited if it were able. Please guys---
clean up and re-define the logic loop for naval targeting. You've
almost got it..., don't fumble on the 5-yard line.

And do it now.., PLEASE! Asking us to plunk down another $50
or so for WitP just to see if you've corrected it yet just isn't
right. I for one, want to know that I will be getting a working
game before I spend any more. Fix UV, and it will be a lot easier
selling WitP to everyone. I know I and 4 friends have been
waiting for it for years.

[Hoplosternum]

I have no problem with changes to the game being made to allow me to prioritise targets, or to specify areas or exclude certain things (either "don't attack CVs" or "don't attck base" orders) or indeed any combination of such changes.

However I think all are in fact quite large changes and would take quite a lot of work to enable the AI to use. Any changes which only the human player can use are going to tip the scales even further in favour of us at least in the longer campaigns. Unless you simply want to make the game much easier the AI will need to be aware and able to exploit these to.

For example it has been explained in the thread that the AI uses some kind of random selection to see what is attacked of the targets available. We know it is weighted in favour of attacking CV taskforces. Now there are many times that I would prefer certain squadrens not to attack CVs. Perhaps I have a squadren of Kates (12) and one Rufes (9) based at Woodlark to interfere with allied supply and minesweeping missions around Gili Gili. Usually the last thing I want is for my few planes to pile in on an allied 4 CV strong TF. They would be massacred. Yet there are times when I would want them to attack CVs such as if i have my own in the area and I want them to help attrite or tire the CAP or even follow up after my main forces have decimated it. It's an easy decision for me but hard for the AI and would require a good deal of extra coding.

And each extra option - prioritisation, or excluding targets, or mission areas etc., will require seperate AI enhancements. So bare in mind that the programmers are not out of shere bloody mindedness not giving us these options but that they are quite serious changes to the game and the AI. I am sure we would all like a better AI. I think the UV one is good but many of you are asking for quite a lot.

Also apart from the 'dont attack ports' option all the others should have a significant chance of strikes going astray. Sometimes convoys are misidentified and planes lose their way. I believe we all want this FoW left in, especially with some extra messages to explain whats going on. So I am not sure just how big a change this will really make, especially as it may result in a lot more missions deciding not to attack anything. I envy you if your ACs have so may firm targets they can pick and choose targets so often. I am usually just relieved when my ACs make a strike at all

I think that Grotius (?) made a good point that this level of control is far more important in a short campaign than in a long one. You can come back far more easily in the long campaign from bad luck and bad target selection in those. Each engagement is far less critical and you have the time to

I would far rather see the programmers focus on WitP without this but with an AI that is going to be able to cope with conquering or reconquering the Pacific and SE Asia. But if it can be added easily and the AI gets to benefit from it too then the extra control would be welcomed by me.

[Bax]

I don't think 2x3 games fumbled on the 5yd line. I think of it rather like they just won the NFC division title with UV, and now they're going to try to win the Super Bowl with WiTP.

(For all my Australian friends out there: think American football, the one not played with a round spheroid!)

If I think of the value for the money that I got out the $50 I paid for UV, it is an amazing bargain. Heck, I spend $50 all the time taking my wife out to dinner and a movie, and that lasts, what...4 hours?

For what I paid for UV, I've already gotten my money's worth many times over. I would galdly pay $100 for WiTP if it lives up to the potential.

For my money, UV is an unqualified success. Are there little nits I could pick? Sure, every game has a few faults. But overall, I love UV and have become addicted to the gameplay.

Call me a cheerleader if you'd like, I don't mind. In fact, I never even knew of Matrix games or 2x3 games before UV. But in very short order, they have gained another very happy, satisfied customer. Not many game companies out there can do that in so short a period of time.

I agree with the development team that any major changes need to go into WiTP, and then retro-fit them to UV. The full focus of the team should be on WiTP.

[TIMJOT]

It occurs to me that if anything this whole issue will be even less significant in WitP. Where as I can see both point of views regarding an argueabley operational/tactical game like UV. The scale and scope of WitP would seem to me rule out any specific targeting or even prioritizaion of TFs. If anything I think there is a need to take some of the micromanagement in Uv out of WitP. For example; things like selecting specific altitude for a/c should be replaced with simple low altitude/high atitude orders.

Besides the whole naval attack at sea or naval attack at port issue, which could and should be rectified for WitP. I would much rather the progamming team dedicate the time in makeing the AI betterand smarter for WitP than adding additional features.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
Clever.

Tell that to the Japanese at Midway and Coral Sea...oops that one is in this game.

One day/night sequence can turn the tide of this game easy.

Midway did not lose the war for the Japanese, it just decided the timescales (they were always going to lose, but might have got a little further). Midway allowed Watchtower, which started the Solomons campaign. IMHO, the Solomons campaign ultimately had a more significant effect on the progression of the war, and that was the result of sustained mis-management and poor JPN 'operational play'.
However Midway IS the classic example of the IJN 'doing it wrong' . Sure, the USN ambushed then using code breaks the IJN didn't anticipate, but in reality they gambled with forces they couldn't afford to lose with a (over complicated) plan with no fall back, took little account of the USN capabilities (and an objective that probably wasn't worth it).
As for Coral Sea - they got slightly mauled, and called off the invasion of PM. How is this relevant? Sounds like a fall back plan/playing the odds to me - not exactly decisive.

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
Midway did not lose the war for the Japanese, it just decided the timescales (they were always going to lose, but might have got a little further). Midway allowed Watchtower, which started the Solomons campaign. IMHO, the Solomons campaign ultimately had a more significant effect on the progression of the war, and that was the result of sustained mis-management and poor JPN 'operational play'.
However Midway IS the classic example of the IJN 'doing it wrong' . Sure, the USN ambushed then using code breaks the IJN didn't anticipate, but in reality they gambled with forces they couldn't afford to lose with a (over complicated) plan with no fall back, took little account of the USN capabilities (and an objective that probably wasn't worth it).
As for Coral Sea - they got slightly mauled, and called off the invasion of PM. How is this relevant? Sounds like a fall back plan/playing the odds to me - not exactly decisive.

The game UV is limited in scope (i.e. time). ONE day in a campaign such as those portrayed in UV can very well decide your fate.

IF you think that the Battle of the Coral Sea was not a huge defining moment in the conflict in the SWPAC in WW2... Well, that is fine I guess. But I think many would disagree. :rolleyes:

My point was ONE turn means a LOT in this game when you can lose a huge portion of your ability to carry on the fight in a single series of airstrikes.

While your previous post was simply a lame attempt to ridicule my abilities (of which you have no clue) by saying that one day is not that important in UV and if it is then I am doing something wrong. You are quite simply incorrect as history shows that in the very conflict this game portrays one day can make a huge difference.

[mjk428]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
However Midway IS the classic example of the IJN 'doing it wrong' . Sure, the USN ambushed then using code breaks the IJN didn't anticipate, but in reality they gambled with forces they couldn't afford to lose with a (over complicated) plan with no fall back, took little account of the USN capabilities (and an objective that probably wasn't worth it).

The main objective was to lure the US carriers out and destroy them. Midway was the bait not just an objective. Had they sunk the remaining US CV's their vain hope of the US suing for peace might just have come about. It was a big gamble but Yamamoto believed it was their only chance.

I agree with you that Japan would have ultimately lost the war and the battles just determined the timescale. Unfortunately they underestimated the US resolve and overestimated their own ablilities. However, kudos to the US codebreakers and aviators for shortening that timescale decisively at Midway.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by mjk428
The main objective was to lure the US carriers out and destroy them. Midway was the bait not just an objective. Had they sunk the remaining US CV's their vain hope of the US suing for peace might just have come about. It was a big gamble but Yamamoto believed it was their only chance.

I agree with you that Japan would have ultimately lost the war and the battles just determined the timescale. Unfortunately they underestimated the US resolve and overestimated their own ablilities. However, kudos to the US codebreakers and aviators for shortening that timescale decisively at Midway.

And let us occidentals all give thanks once again for the lack of effective maintenance on the Tone's float planes...

[jwilkerson]

Since most of the replies indicate that the "repliers" are almost as stupid as the AI ... I think the best thing for the realists amongst us .. is to move on to something else ... I've been trying to play this game for 6 months ( against humans not the AI ) ... not once or twice or trice as some of the respondants ... also I've been in the military ( 4 years ) ... also I've been playing wargames for 40 years ... so all I can say is the game is not a correct representation of reality, not even close ... when rpeatedly ( i.e. the norm ) is that unescorted bombers fly into massive land airbases ... at extended range ... when escorts are available and doing nothing ... to attack cruisers in port ... when the commanders intention was to screen against ships at sea ... etc. etc. and BTW I do perfer games where the commander's plans are mucqued up by the computer ... that's one reason I like computer games ... but as some have pointed out ... we are beyond the random muque up ...
I'm moving on ... see ya later ... there are other games ... and other idiots available elsewhere ... and since the designers have declared they will not fix ... then bye bye ...

Real Name = Joseph Chandra Wilkerson ...

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by jwilkerson
I'm moving on ... see ya later ... there are other games ... and other idiots available elsewhere

And I hope the two of you will be very happy together. You seem to have a lot in common, you and the other idiots.

Matrix is considering seriously the serious suggestions that have been made on this thread. Their announced pledge to improve the AI and make other changes during the design process for WITP and retro-fitting the improvements to UV is completely satisfactory to me. Meanwhile, I am continuing to play this thoroughly excellent game (despite its minor shortcomings) both by myself and with my friends. I am glad that you have found a source of superior games - care to share it with us so that we idiots can bask in the benevolent glow of your holiness's wisdom?

"Trice?"

[denisonh]

Originally posted by pasternakski

[snip]
Matrix is considering seriously the serious suggestions that have been made on this thread. Their announced pledge to improve the AI and make other changes during the design process for WITP and retro-fitting the improvements to UV is completely satisfactory to me. Meanwhile, I am continuing to play this thoroughly excellent game (despite its minor shortcomings) both by myself and with my friends.

[snip]

Ditto

[bilbow]

Originally posted by pasternakski
And I hope the two of you will be very happy together. You seem to have a lot in common, you and the other idiots.

Matrix is considering seriously the serious suggestions that have been made on this thread. Their announced pledge to improve the AI and make other changes during the design process for WITP and retro-fitting the improvements to UV is completely satisfactory to me. Meanwhile, I am continuing to play this thoroughly excellent game (despite its minor shortcomings) both by myself and with my friends. I am glad that you have found a source of superior games - care to share it with us so that we idiots can bask in the benevolent glow of your holiness's wisdom?

"Trice?"

Amen, brother P.