UV is definitely a complete game that could stand on its own, even if WitP were never released. It's also a very good game.
I think UV is sort of a microcosm of WitP, where you can concentrate more on tactics then grand strategies...where the sinking of a carrier can ruin your carefully crafted plans. Whereas in WitP, losing control of an entire region, or the war for production, would be plan spoilers.
If they released a game depicting the battle of Stalingrad, and then a game covering the entire Russian war using the same basic engine, would you think they were vastly different games?
Differences, WITP vs UV?
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
"UV is essentially a battle game between the U.S. and the Japanese."
Lets just stick to Allies shall we Byron....
Historically, the Aussies suffered just as many dead and wounded (if not more) in the area set for UV as our American friends.
Also, if our friends at Martix have got it right in UV, at LEAST half of your ground forces and a good proprtion of your LBA is going to be Australian.
Beaut heh.
Lets just stick to Allies shall we Byron....
Historically, the Aussies suffered just as many dead and wounded (if not more) in the area set for UV as our American friends.
Also, if our friends at Martix have got it right in UV, at LEAST half of your ground forces and a good proprtion of your LBA is going to be Australian.
Beaut heh.
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
Paul
One reason for preferring UV over WitP _might_ be that WitP turns out to be "too much of a good thing". For example IMO Talonsoft's Battle OF Britain, by Grigsby and Brors, was the perfect size conflict for the game engine. In contrast I thought their Bombing the Reich, which used much of the same engine, was too much of a good thing. I'm a micromanager who doesn't like to delegate to the AI and it felt like there was just too much to handle. Of course I am not saying the same about UV or WitP at this stage, just that it might turn out to be a reason to prefer the former over the latter.
elmo3
[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: elmo3 ]</p>
One reason for preferring UV over WitP _might_ be that WitP turns out to be "too much of a good thing". For example IMO Talonsoft's Battle OF Britain, by Grigsby and Brors, was the perfect size conflict for the game engine. In contrast I thought their Bombing the Reich, which used much of the same engine, was too much of a good thing. I'm a micromanager who doesn't like to delegate to the AI and it felt like there was just too much to handle. Of course I am not saying the same about UV or WitP at this stage, just that it might turn out to be a reason to prefer the former over the latter.
elmo3
[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: elmo3 ]</p>
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
Snigbert comments are interesting, but I must disagree. War in Russia (SSI) and Stalingrad (Atomic) are/were two very different games. Both were enjoyable. There may have even been a Stalingrad scenario for WarInRussia, but I can't remember. What I do know, is if SSI tried to publish a scenario 'Stalingrad', with larger hexes and less functionality, prior to releasing War in Russia, they would have been creamed.
Atomic did publish a number of games using the same platform, and they did well, but they reached a point were very few people purchased there software. I'm sure most wargamers purchased UTAH Beach (V for Victory # 1), maybe GOLD/SWORD/JUNO (I didn't) and possibly MarketGarden (I did because I've always been interested in this battle), but how may people purchased VolkariLuki, or D-Day or Stalingrad (I did but waited for it in the bargain bin).
MATRIX should release UV as a scenario of WITP.
Atomic did publish a number of games using the same platform, and they did well, but they reached a point were very few people purchased there software. I'm sure most wargamers purchased UTAH Beach (V for Victory # 1), maybe GOLD/SWORD/JUNO (I didn't) and possibly MarketGarden (I did because I've always been interested in this battle), but how may people purchased VolkariLuki, or D-Day or Stalingrad (I did but waited for it in the bargain bin).
MATRIX should release UV as a scenario of WITP.
Stubby:
Sincerest apologies for the comment. I actually caught that remark about the Americans before I sent the message and thought I had changed to Allies. No question that our fellow outcast colonists (I'm from the old penal colony now known as Georgia) saved our bacon during 1942. My point was that UV should largely leave out the Brits and all of the Chinese and the massive slugfest that took place in Asia.
I still say UV is definitely a stand alone from WitP, and one could play one without getting tired of the other. UV is unique in the area it covers, the time it covers, and the type of combat it covers. I wouldn't get tired of WitP if I had a smaller version that focused on land combat in Asia or carrier warfare in the Central Pacific. The focus is different, the scale is different, and I simply believe that the feeling of playing UV will be different from playing WitP. If you want to play God and play a game that covers half the globe with political rules and production concerns, play WitP. But, if you wake up and just want to play some kick butt combat game on a grand tactical scale without worrying about the other garbage, play UV.
Sincerest apologies for the comment. I actually caught that remark about the Americans before I sent the message and thought I had changed to Allies. No question that our fellow outcast colonists (I'm from the old penal colony now known as Georgia) saved our bacon during 1942. My point was that UV should largely leave out the Brits and all of the Chinese and the massive slugfest that took place in Asia.
I still say UV is definitely a stand alone from WitP, and one could play one without getting tired of the other. UV is unique in the area it covers, the time it covers, and the type of combat it covers. I wouldn't get tired of WitP if I had a smaller version that focused on land combat in Asia or carrier warfare in the Central Pacific. The focus is different, the scale is different, and I simply believe that the feeling of playing UV will be different from playing WitP. If you want to play God and play a game that covers half the globe with political rules and production concerns, play WitP. But, if you wake up and just want to play some kick butt combat game on a grand tactical scale without worrying about the other garbage, play UV.
Um, yeah, what you guys said, lol. UV isn't a subset contained within WiTP. The scale alone will have significant impact.
The BOB vs. BTR is a good analogy.
You won't be able to segregrate the South Pacific theatre out of WitP, as is done with UV. So playing WitP is not going to be just UV on a larger scale.
Sure the WitP map encompasses the UV map, but again, at a different scale. And again, you can't *ignore* the rest of the Pacific theatre in WitP, as you can in UV(since its not part of the game).
I do understand the "dissenting" viewpoint. I'm sure a lot people felt the same way when the orignal Wargame construction kit was released, after many games had been made, and sold, using the exact same engine.
For me, I don't want to control the whole shebang all the time. The operational level of UV is perfect for me. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
The BOB vs. BTR is a good analogy.
You won't be able to segregrate the South Pacific theatre out of WitP, as is done with UV. So playing WitP is not going to be just UV on a larger scale.
Sure the WitP map encompasses the UV map, but again, at a different scale. And again, you can't *ignore* the rest of the Pacific theatre in WitP, as you can in UV(since its not part of the game).
I do understand the "dissenting" viewpoint. I'm sure a lot people felt the same way when the orignal Wargame construction kit was released, after many games had been made, and sold, using the exact same engine.
For me, I don't want to control the whole shebang all the time. The operational level of UV is perfect for me. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"
Clan [GOAT]
Clan [GOAT]
BTR? BOB the old apple version? Anyway, I'm sure that WitP will have atleast one scenario which encompasses UV, and atleast one for Guadalcanal, maybe more. A lot of games have scenarios with reduced maps and possibly different hex scales. I'm sure it would not be difficult to turn off production option, or schedule specific reinforcements at given dates and times.
The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of delaying UV and include it with WitP.
The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of delaying UV and include it with WitP.
BTR = 12 o'clock high:Bombing the Reich"BTR? BOB the old apple version? Anyway"
BOB = Battle of Britain(BTR's predecessor)
They were both for WinX. If you want one of the ultimate expressions of micro-management possibilties, play the BTR campaign game(700 turns). You get to plan every/single/mission, if you like. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"
Clan [GOAT]
Clan [GOAT]
-
David Heath
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 5:00 pm
Hi Guys
After reading over the tread I think some more details are in order.
UV engine and scale have been set up to deal with the operation in the South Pacific. Lets start with what will look the same. The interface will be very close on things like air groups, naval units, forming task forces etc.
The scale may seem minor but 30 miles to 50 miles is a big difference considering the amount of area we are covering in WITP. Before anyone asks WITP at 30 miles a hex is impossible but for the elite of machines. The WITP map alone was at 200 megs and we were not even done yet.
WITP will be the largest wargame any of us at Matrix Games or 2by3 Games have ever try to develop.
Here are some of the more major changes your find like land combat... you now have a chance fight the China campaign, Soviets units will also be represented in the game.
There will be scenarios for the South Pacific but the scale alone will make it a very differnet game.
Supply and the game turn length will also play huge differences in the game. The basic UV engine will be the same but SO much more will be added the it may very well take us longer to complete the WITP game then it took us to make UV and with with using UV as a base.
The main reason we did Uncommon Valor first was we all loved what Gary had started and felt that WITP is going to be such a monster and we wanted to do it right. God only knows how long it will be before some else comes along to give you a detail wargame covering the Pacific Theather.
We all could see how well UV would be a good starting point. We took that idea and felt that with the public playing UV we could use the feedback to fine tune the core game as well as give you a good South Pacific wargame. The ground combat in UV is limited and would not work for the whole WITP.
We are considering making a Battle of Britain with Operation Sealion. This would be much more closer to UV then WITP.
I hope this gives everyone some view as to the differnces and reasons behind what we are doing and thank you for your interest in our products.
[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: David Heath ]
[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: David Heath ]</p>
After reading over the tread I think some more details are in order.
UV engine and scale have been set up to deal with the operation in the South Pacific. Lets start with what will look the same. The interface will be very close on things like air groups, naval units, forming task forces etc.
The scale may seem minor but 30 miles to 50 miles is a big difference considering the amount of area we are covering in WITP. Before anyone asks WITP at 30 miles a hex is impossible but for the elite of machines. The WITP map alone was at 200 megs and we were not even done yet.
WITP will be the largest wargame any of us at Matrix Games or 2by3 Games have ever try to develop.
Here are some of the more major changes your find like land combat... you now have a chance fight the China campaign, Soviets units will also be represented in the game.
There will be scenarios for the South Pacific but the scale alone will make it a very differnet game.
Supply and the game turn length will also play huge differences in the game. The basic UV engine will be the same but SO much more will be added the it may very well take us longer to complete the WITP game then it took us to make UV and with with using UV as a base.
The main reason we did Uncommon Valor first was we all loved what Gary had started and felt that WITP is going to be such a monster and we wanted to do it right. God only knows how long it will be before some else comes along to give you a detail wargame covering the Pacific Theather.
We all could see how well UV would be a good starting point. We took that idea and felt that with the public playing UV we could use the feedback to fine tune the core game as well as give you a good South Pacific wargame. The ground combat in UV is limited and would not work for the whole WITP.
We are considering making a Battle of Britain with Operation Sealion. This would be much more closer to UV then WITP.
I hope this gives everyone some view as to the differnces and reasons behind what we are doing and thank you for your interest in our products.
[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: David Heath ]
[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: David Heath ]</p>
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
I think the AI in Grigsby's Battle of Britain sucked! Playing either side, one finds the level of resource committment on the pinch here dash there side. Pretty bad when Adolph Galland and Werner Moelders fly less that 25 missions between them, when in fact they historically flew two or three a day in August 1940 alone! So little pressure that never once did the game not end before the first vp threshold. ie., AI did not satisfy requirements to continue game once. Real historical!!! How hard can it be to get AI to use maximum effort?
Regarding UV and WITP, the primary difference should be with the AI; the scope being the other obvious one. I think WITP AI should be limited to Japanese as their realistic options were relatively limited after the opening moves (perhaps initiate play May 1942). Otherewise, this game should concentrate on H2H play.
UV on the other hand, because of it's scope, can support relatively decent AI for either side. It's potentially more of a stand alone project.
Regarding UV and WITP, the primary difference should be with the AI; the scope being the other obvious one. I think WITP AI should be limited to Japanese as their realistic options were relatively limited after the opening moves (perhaps initiate play May 1942). Otherewise, this game should concentrate on H2H play.
UV on the other hand, because of it's scope, can support relatively decent AI for either side. It's potentially more of a stand alone project.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Any comments regarding AI in Battle of Britain? My worry is this. If they can't get AI to work on a "relatively limited" number of variables present in BoB, how in the world can they successfully attempt something on the scope of WITP? Gonna be a complicated endeavour to say the least, hopefully it won't deep six WITP. Maybe skip AI full campaign (PBEM only) and build competent AI for battle, operation, and campaign size scenarios.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Hello...
We are a different "they" than the "they" that wrote the AI for BoB. No deep six. We are writing AI for the full campaign. You will find the AI closer to that in PacWar than that in BoB as the AI code looks more like the AI code from PacWar.
Bye...
Michael Wood
____________________________________________________
We are a different "they" than the "they" that wrote the AI for BoB. No deep six. We are writing AI for the full campaign. You will find the AI closer to that in PacWar than that in BoB as the AI code looks more like the AI code from PacWar.
Bye...
Michael Wood
____________________________________________________
Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Any comments regarding AI in Battle of Britain? My worry is this. If they can't get AI to work on a "relatively limited" number of variables present in BoB, how in the world can they successfully attempt something on the scope of WITP? Gonna be a complicated endeavour to say the least, hopefully it won't deep six WITP. Maybe skip AI full campaign (PBEM only) and build competent AI for battle, operation, and campaign size scenarios.
-
Paul Goodman
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
Why are you all so pessimistic about the Matrix programmers' ability to create a decent AI?
Pacwar is so old compared to these games! Doesn't anyone think its possible these guys have learned a thing or two about programming the AI in the meantime? And given the massive increase in memory and technology that can be utilized now, I think the game will be ok.
BOB and BTR are different games put out by a different company. Yes, there were some of the same people involved, but I am confident that any shortcomings from those games have been learned, noted and will be corrected.
Releasing UV is a great idea for the reasons Mike Wood mentioned earlier in this thread. You gotta crawl before you walk...
Finally, I must say this: BTR is a great game if you have the patience for it. 700 turns is a lot when each turn takes an hour or so, but with the newest patches put out, its a helluva game...
Pacwar is so old compared to these games! Doesn't anyone think its possible these guys have learned a thing or two about programming the AI in the meantime? And given the massive increase in memory and technology that can be utilized now, I think the game will be ok.
BOB and BTR are different games put out by a different company. Yes, there were some of the same people involved, but I am confident that any shortcomings from those games have been learned, noted and will be corrected.
Releasing UV is a great idea for the reasons Mike Wood mentioned earlier in this thread. You gotta crawl before you walk...
Finally, I must say this: BTR is a great game if you have the patience for it. 700 turns is a lot when each turn takes an hour or so, but with the newest patches put out, its a helluva game...
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Hey Madflava and Mike
Madflava.
Hi there. Don't mean to sound pessimistic, but AI is an important part to any game. Look at how the AI in Close Combat disabled an otherwise great game. Reading the posts by individuals involved in programming AI (not necessarily on this forum) made me realise that this is the most challenging aspect of any good release. I had never realised it was so difficult. I never bought BTR because of it's lack of replayability, and the patches which followed never addressed the problem of low intensity commitment, regardless of side chosen. Have you played BoB, or just BTR? If you have, can you compare the two, or are the differences/improvements like comparing apples and oranges? I still play BoB on occassion, though, because it has such a nice historical flavour.
Mike Wood. Sorry. You are right...I forgot that design teams change with time. I was also just trying to get this thread going again to see where you guys were regarding AI development. No offense intended.:rolleyes:
RS
Hi there. Don't mean to sound pessimistic, but AI is an important part to any game. Look at how the AI in Close Combat disabled an otherwise great game. Reading the posts by individuals involved in programming AI (not necessarily on this forum) made me realise that this is the most challenging aspect of any good release. I had never realised it was so difficult. I never bought BTR because of it's lack of replayability, and the patches which followed never addressed the problem of low intensity commitment, regardless of side chosen. Have you played BoB, or just BTR? If you have, can you compare the two, or are the differences/improvements like comparing apples and oranges? I still play BoB on occassion, though, because it has such a nice historical flavour.
Mike Wood. Sorry. You are right...I forgot that design teams change with time. I was also just trying to get this thread going again to see where you guys were regarding AI development. No offense intended.:rolleyes:
RS
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
I've never played BOB, just BTR. I admit, BTR is a cumbersome and buggy game in its initial form. There is a small but active support community for it though (it is no longer Talonsoft supported). These people make it a great game to play - through numerous OOB updates and bug patches. The website for anyone interested is http://pages.prodigy.net/jeanluc200/
I agree the AI is the most challenging part of game design. I've still got faith and will reserve negative comments until such time as they are needed (ie if the AI stinks in WITP). Either way PBEM looks to be awesome in both these games, and early AARs suggest UV's AI is fairly competent - causing some headaches for the playtesters...
Eagerly awaiting...
I agree the AI is the most challenging part of game design. I've still got faith and will reserve negative comments until such time as they are needed (ie if the AI stinks in WITP). Either way PBEM looks to be awesome in both these games, and early AARs suggest UV's AI is fairly competent - causing some headaches for the playtesters...
Eagerly awaiting...
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Re: Hey Madflava and Mike
Hello...
No offense taken. The AI is coming along quite nicely. We hope you enjoy playing the game as much as we have enjoyed writing it.
_________________________________________________
No offense taken. The AI is coming along quite nicely. We hope you enjoy playing the game as much as we have enjoyed writing it.
_________________________________________________
Mike Wood. Sorry. You are right...I forgot that design teams change with time. I was also just trying to get this thread going again to see where you guys were regarding AI development. No offense intended.:rolleyes:
RS
-
Rex Bellator
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 2:14 am
- Location: Kent UK
I fully intend to buy UV and WitP regardless, but I notice no mention of the Burma campaign is included above.Originally posted by David Heath
Hi Guys
Here are some of the more major changes your find like land combat... you now have a chance fight the China campaign, Soviets units will also be represented in the game.
Can anyone advise if it will be included , as it was in PacWar?