Future Patches Release Rate?

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

chrisp
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 4:45 am
Location: Wichita, KS

Post by chrisp »

Please sir, can I have some more......

Is it possible to add fatigue and morale data to the aircraft display for an airbase (you know, when you click the airfield button in the base display)? Right now, you have to scroll through each aircraft individually to find out who's got low morale/high fatigue. Would be really nice if I could just list all the aircraft and then change mission for the squadrons that need rest.

Shouldn't be difficult to include this (although peopel tell me this all the time and it's rarely true ;-) and it would save a lot of time.

Just another item on the wish list.

Chris P.
JohnK
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 10:00 am

What about Argonaut????

Post by JohnK »

Posted the e-mail I got from the person who is probably the best living authority in Argonaut here months ago....anyone at Matrix want me to re-send it directly to their e-mail or something?

Argonaut needs to have its minelaying capability removed and stern TT tubes added.
XPav
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 2:25 am
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: Thanks for list Joel!

Post by XPav »

Originally posted by Apollo11
Hi all,

I am still trying to find out the name of the UV player who first
suggested this (and then I, from memory, posted his idea to
Joel)...
That would be me.
I love it when a plan comes together.
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33775
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

Post by Joel Billings »

Don't know for sure about why the PT boats are done that way, but it is what Gary and/or Mike wants. I guess the thinking is PT boats could just beach and hang out for awhile without using up fuel.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Von Rom »

Hi,

Right now all of the individual patches need to be downloaded separately.

I was wondering if it would be possible in the near future to combine all these patches into a single patch to allow for just one download.

Thanks :) Great job so far. . .
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25453
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Still don't get this PT TF thing...

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
Originally posted by Joel Billings
Don't know for sure about why the PT boats are done that way, but it is what Gary and/or Mike wants. I guess the thinking is PT boats could just beach and hang out for awhile without using up fuel.
Hmmm...

What about if they are parked in the middle of ocean?

This was the case before I reported it and before it was fixed
in v1.40 patch (the PT TF could stay in sea HEX for
days/weeks/months)...


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Possum
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia

Post by Possum »

How about re-classifying the Beaufighter VIc as a Fighter bomber.
Australian Beaufighter VIc's didn't carry torpedoes, instead they relied on their heavy gun battery. The RAAF employed them as LR strikefighters, not torpedo bombers!
Also, how about some replacement Spitfires....
While I'm here, how about allowing manual upgrade of aircraft?
I often find myself being frustrated by the Auto-upgrade system not upgrading, or instead upgrading a group I don't want upgraded, rather that the group I'm avidly waiting to upgrad.
"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
Yamamoto
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.

Post by Yamamoto »

26) IJN ASW effectiveness has been reduced by 50%.

This seems a little heavy to me. It's not like it's exactly easy to kill a sub right now. Perhaps people are seeing some of the S class subs sunk and they are thinking it ahistorical because the better Gato class subs were harder to sink.

Currently the Type 95 Depth charge has an accuracy of 5. Does this mean it will go down to a 2.5 ?

Everything else looks good though.

Yamamoto
User avatar
wzh55
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Sacramento, CA USA

Post by wzh55 »

Wondering if this is supposed to be.....
Each time I put in my UV disc (Yes, I do HAVE to remove it occasionally), the "start up" screen says, among other things, "INSTALL UV." There is no "PLAY UV" option on auto run sequence. I have to exit the screen, wait for the game to shut down, and then click on the icon where I do get a "PLAY UV" option. Really annoying after awhile. Any chance this can be addressed in the future? Thanks.

:)
Bill Hawthorne
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25453
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Beaufighter VIc's are OK as they are now...

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
Originally posted by Possum
How about re-classifying the Beaufighter VIc as a Fighter bomber.
Australian Beaufighter VIc's didn't carry torpedoes, instead they relied on their heavy gun battery. The RAAF employed them as LR strikefighters, not torpedo bombers!
Also, how about some replacement Spitfires....
While I'm here, how about allowing manual upgrade of aircraft?
I often find myself being frustrated by the Auto-upgrade system not upgrading, or instead upgrading a group I don't want upgraded, rather that the group I'm avidly waiting to upgrad.
Beaufighter VIc's are OK as they are now...

In book that I own (British Aircraft of WWII) the Beaufighter VIc's
are exactly what they are - torpedo bombers (and thus level
bombers in UV).

In this book it is also written that Australian Beaufighter VIc's were
torpedo bombers as well and that this aircraft-torpedo match
was one of the best ship killing machines of the war ("Whispering
Death") and that they wrecked havoc on Japanese shipping.


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25453
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: Re: Thanks for list Joel!

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
Originally posted by XPav


That would be me.
It was excellent suggestion!


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
EricLarsen
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation

Happy Camper

Post by EricLarsen »

Joel,
I really like seeing points 4 & 6 on the list for 1.50 fixes. There's also some other good things being fixed as well.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen
Black Cat
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 6:46 pm

Great Work Guys

Post by Black Cat »

I especially like # 18, the "Stand Down" button for the Sq`s Secondary Missions List orders, saves mucho clicking..

Thanks !
Black Cat
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 6:46 pm

I Respectfully Disagree

Post by Black Cat »

Originally posted by Wilhammer


LR-CAP over carriers too good is on the 'maybe' list?!?!.

That is a game killer, I would expect it to be a critical must-do item.
First this is a general response, not directed to, or at, Wilhammer.

I disagree, as one of the 2 guys ( Oleg was the other ) who took the time (( several hours BTW )) to set up and post a test of the LR Fighter CAP over CV TF`s I think the results are still out on exactally how _ consistently_ key word there, deadly it is.

But beyond that it is certainly a non issue for those that play the AI. . I agree, that as long as both agree, people can play anyway they want in a PBEM Game......BUT

What I really don`t understand here is WHY anyone would want to move and attack with your CV`s toward a opponents CV TF that is obviously parked 60 miles from a major size 9 Airbase,
has 3 Sq`s of Army AF Fighter CAP over it AND here`s the *key point* unless the other Guy is an idiot has 3 Sq`s of Medium Bombers set on Naval Strike with a Sq of Fighters as escort.... a veeeerrrry Gamey Ploy.

You attack that combo and your Dead Meat, and deserve to be.
Why should they " fix it" so your TF will always be Sunk in a slighty more balanced fashion ????

Ya know in other PBEM/MP type Games that`s called " Camping" a guy finds a strong defensive postion, and just stays put, won`t come out to fight, or engage....you lose because he did nothing, he wins by doing nothing.

Very quickly, that guy losses all _respect _ and no one plays him anymore...

Now, the only reason I take the time to post this ( probably my last post on this Forum ) is that I do not think Matrix, with their limited time & recources, and need to make & sell other Games should have to " make work" any tactic or strategy , however gamey, silly, unreasonable or ahistorical that people can come up with in a historical simulation.

Give Them A Break People.
Point Luck
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 6:24 pm
Location: East Coast-US

Post by Point Luck »

Originally posted by Yamamoto
26) IJN ASW effectiveness has been reduced by 50%.

This seems a little heavy to me. It's not like it's exactly easy to kill a sub right now. Perhaps people are seeing some of the S class subs sunk and they are thinking it ahistorical because the better Gato class subs were harder to sink.

Currently the Type 95 Depth charge has an accuracy of 5. Does this mean it will go down to a 2.5 ?

Everything else looks good though.

Yamamoto
I whole wholeheartedly agree. I’m a little concerned about the reduction level for IJN ASW. I’ve being playing scenario 19 with some very serious sub operations on both sides. To date sub losses are pretty much equal. Sinkings by both sides have been hard earned, We have seen some very interesting sub action, including some attack aircraft being shot down by the attacked sub (no kidding IJN lost 2 so far US lost 3, (1-b17). I don’t believe that the IJN ASW is equal or better than U S. I really have to work the area with A/C and DD’s to bag any U S subs.
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Originally posted by Joel Billings
The LR-cap item would be a redo if it happened every time and we knew what was happening. Gary is trying to tone it down, but the one save he was sent does not consistently show killer LR-CAP.
Sorry, what exactly do you mean by this?

I guess the one save file you mention is mine. If so, it must consistently show killer CAP effect, at least that's how it is on my machine. No matter how many times I open it - it always show same things happenning, always 45 x Val strike, 45 Vals downed etc.

?

O.
wpurdom
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Decatur, GA, USA

naval bombardment

Post by wpurdom »

"Casualties to ground units caused by air and naval bombardments have been reduced. "
Have people really been experiencing excessive casualities from naval bombardment? In my games, it has seemed that naval bombardment was pretty anemic (against ground troops, that is) in comparison to air bombardment. What has the experience of other players been?
XPav
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 2:25 am
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Post by XPav »

Originally posted by Point Luck


I whole wholeheartedly agree. I’m a little concerned about the reduction level for IJN ASW. I’ve being playing scenario 19 with some very serious sub operations on both sides. To date sub losses are pretty much equal. Sinkings by both sides have been hard earned, We have seen some very interesting sub action, including some attack aircraft being shot down by the attacked sub (no kidding IJN lost 2 so far US lost 3, (1-b17). I don’t believe that the IJN ASW is equal or better than U S. I really have to work the area with A/C and DD’s to bag any U S subs.
I believe the reason they are reducing IJN ASW effectiveness is because historically, the IJN were comparitively poor at ASW. As it stands currently, a single "experience" rating is used for all tasks, and the high experience japanese ships are, compared to historical loss rates, far too good at ASW.
I love it when a plan comes together.
User avatar
Paul Vebber
Posts: 5342
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Portsmouth RI
Contact:

Post by Paul Vebber »

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by this? I guess the one save file you mention is mine. If so, it must consistently show killer CAP effect, at least that's how it is on my machine. No matter how many times I open it - it always show same things happenning, always 45 x Val strike, 45 Vals downed etc.


When you replay a save file you will always get the same result - that prevents pople from replaying turns to get better results.

You have to set up a similar situation and have the same sort of result occur everytime or else you are just watching a replay over and over of a series of bad die rolls.
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Originally posted by Paul Vebber


When you replay a save file you will always get the same result - that prevents pople from replaying turns to get better results.

You have to set up a similar situation and have the same sort of result occur everytime or else you are just watching a replay over and over of a series of bad die rolls.
But I did set up several similar situations and got very similar results!

Killer CAP effect DOES happen VERY consistently on my system, I guess I explained it all in my mails to Ross, and posts in Killer CAP thread on bug forums etc... It happens whenever I set up a LR CAP (more squadrons doing LR CAP - the effect is stronger) over CVs.

Do I have to smother your mailservers with attachments of my savefiles with glaring evidence of this bug? :)

O.
Post Reply

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