Matrix Games Forums

Veldor,

I agree that it would be great to have a reaction range. We've looked at this, but no decision has been made yet.

In the meantime, a non-aggressive (i.e. careful or cautious) commander would likely never have made that reaction move. Only an aggressive or very agressive (very few of those) commander would do it, in my experience. Even then, it's a bit of a fluke. On the flipside, I've had TFs fail to react in time to intercept an enemy bombarding a base in the adjacent hex.

For the time being, the best way to restrict TF reaction range is to assign the commander yourself.

Regards,

- Erik

i have stopped playing due to this and a few other issues that the game does. i think the game needs some fine tuning. i know its a operation game , but the fact of the matter the game does alot of things that would never happen on a regular basis. and it does them time and time again. i dont want to learn all these little game tricks to off set my opp taking advantage of the system. the game is close to being great, but with all these willy nilly affects taking place it cheapins the game. the game has enough rules and stuff without learning the tricks not posted because of the limits of the engine. thats the way i see it.

Originally posted by Krec
i have stopped playing due to this and a few other issues that the game does. i think the game needs some fine tuning. i know its a operation game , but the fact of the matter the game does alot of things that would never happen on a regular basis. and it does them time and time again. i dont want to learn all these little game tricks to off set my opp taking advantage of the system. the game is close to being great, but with all these willy nilly affects taking place it cheapins the game. the game has enough rules and stuff without learning the tricks not posted because of the limits of the engine. thats the way i see it.

And I'll probably be the only one that applauds you for doing so, even though I personally have chosen to stick with it anyway. If computer wargaming is to advance, you shouldn't have to practice "gamey" tactics to control what should be able to be done through an appropriate interface and bug-free engine.

At the same time I realize the alternative to games like this is nothing at all, save going back to board games. So I will continue to buy them anyway... Even though the lesson will never be learned. Its a fundamental problem with most computer wargames. If Matrix or someone else solves it, then they will quickly monopolize the computer wargame industry....

I'm not specifically refering to UV here. I frankly find most wargames all VERY sub-par in this category. UV has by far the best interface in my opinion yet, but still a long way from what I'd like ultimately. Thus why I will continue to support Matrix.

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
Veldor,

I agree that it would be great to have a reaction range. We've looked at this, but no decision has been made yet.

In the meantime, a non-aggressive (i.e. careful or cautious) commander would likely never have made that reaction move. Only an aggressive or very agressive (very few of those) commander would do it, in my experience. Even then, it's a bit of a fluke. On the flipside, I've had TFs fail to react in time to intercept an enemy bombarding a base in the adjacent hex.

For the time being, the best way to restrict TF reaction range is to assign the commander yourself.

Regards,

- Erik

Thanks for your response, but perhaps it was my thought that I wanted an "aggressive" commander so that I would guarantee engagement with any TF that came into the local vacinity..

Games of UV are quite long. It is quite frustrating to have been playing one so long and suddenly loose and entire Surface Combat Fleet (5 Sunken CA's included) due to an issue such as this. I can stomach all sorts of losses otherwise, cuz hey, its just my bad strategy..But I really think more finetuning of missions and orders should be allowed on such critical game assests..

I don't want to yell at the computer for mistakes, I want to yell at myself.

If the "commander" chosen is going to be the way to do that, then I think it needs to be spelled out clearer exactly what type of commander will do what... So if I want to engage anything within normal range I pick this type, and so on...

yes, i concer

dont get me wrong , i like the game. i just dont care for these situations that pop up . heck why plan at all when a little trick like getting your forces to jump and then get creamed when what you ordered was to stay put. the loading thing is a bit wierd too.
heck half the time i dont know if the troops are loaded or why they are heading back when i told them to high tail it . a bit to vague for me i am affraid. i am basically a tactical guy (spwaw)
but thought id give this game a try. against the ai was not bad , its really against a human that the engine really gets tested . poeple being what they are are going to try every nasty little trick. thats were you see just whats in the pudding. at this point the pudding needs a little more stirring thats all.

I think the past might be a good example to follow.
I'm thinking of the naval war sim Harpoon and its offspring where you could define ROE and a specific kind of patrol zone... asw/asuw/aaw etc etc... If we could design a TF, assign the commander and then assign a patrol zone (like we pretty much already can in UV) then the last trick would be to prioritize, and that's the key word... prioritize what the mission and ROE should be.
THEN the commanders aggresiveness and leadership qualities shold be implemented INTO those ROE.... not in spite of them.
This makes sense histroically and in a military manner.
Just because a commander was gutsy and wanted to attack the whole Japanese fleet with his minelayer didn't mean he deliberately went out and disobeyed ROE or left his assigned mission location.
So,
why not be able to assign ROE, prioritze the threats, the mission and then let commanders execute those orders with thier game ranked qualities... I think that would work well.